Consultation on foreign aircraft

[drauk]

The short version is that N-reg can stay and that the FAA IR is crap.

The long version, with a nod to Julian who posted this on PPL/IR:


Government response

Introduction

1. I am writing to thank you for responding to the Department's Consultation on the application of UK regulatory requirements to foreign registered aircraft based permanently in the UK.

2. Our consultation paper of 1 August last year sought views on a proposal to take steps to ensure that all privately operated aircraft permanently based in the UK were operated under requirements equivalent to those contained in the appropriate harmonised European standards. We suggested that this might best be achieved through an amendment to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) aimed at preventing foreign registered aircraft (other than those registered in a state subject to EASA's requirements) from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft could spend in the UK to perhaps 90 days in any 12 months.

3. Copies of the consultation paper were sent directly to representative organisations and stakeholders (listed in Annex C of the consultation document). It was also made available on the Department's website in addition to being publicised by a number of aviation magazines.

4. The closing date for responses was 28 October, although the Department accepted a small number after that date. We received 299 responses in all from many different sources including private citizens, Members of Parliament and the House of Lords, industry, commerce, aviation associations and foreign aviation authorities.
Responses to the consultation

5. Responses received by the Department demonstrated widespread opposition to the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to prevent foreign registered aircraft from being based in the UK by limiting the time such aircraft may remain in the country to perhaps 90 days in any one year. However, the Government has also taken note of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration. Respondents emphasised in particular the perceived difficulty for holders of private pilots' licences of achieving an Instrument Rating in the UK under the prevailing JAR-FCL Instrument Rating requirements; the costs and commercial disadvantages of placing aircraft on the UK register; the relatively fewer aircraft and parts that are certified by the CAA as compared to the FAA or other Authorities; and the widespread recognition and acceptance of FAA licences and certificates worldwide. The feeling among these correspondents was that rather than Government introducing a limit on the activities of foreign registered aircraft, incentives should be introduced for owners to register their aircraft on the UK Register. Many respondents suggested they would move their aircraft to the UK register should CAA certification of aircraft and parts become more extensive and the process of obtaining an Instrument Rating be made more readily achievable.
Government response

6. The Government remains convinced that widespread flagging out of aircraft based in the UK is undesirable and out of line with the internationally accepted system of regulation of civil aviation embodied in the Chicago Convention. Our objective remains that aircraft based in the UK should be required to meet safety standards acceptable within Europe and be subject to verification by the UK and other European aviation authorities that they meet those standards. Taking into account the responses to the consultation, however, and while we will continue to monitor the operation of foreign registered aircraft based here, we conclude that it would not be appropriate at this time to introduce a requirement to place such aircraft on the UK register or impose a time-limit on their activities. We have reached this view in part because it appears to the Government that European proposals published in November 2005 to extend the scope of common European aviation safety rules may provide a better means of achieving our objective in a proportionate way. Stakeholders have been consulted generally on the proposal "to amend Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency". This proposal specifically amends the scope of the EASA Regulation to include a category of aircraft registered in a third country and used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community. Detailed implementing rules will be needed to give force to this amendment and we would expect the Agency to consult stakeholders on the details of their proposals at the appropriate time.

7. Regarding the widespread desire for a simplified instrument rating, the Government recalls that the current rating was established by the JAA acting on the advice of experts from the national aviation authorities of the JAA member States. Responsibility for future changes will rest with EASA. The Government will support efforts by EASA to address this issue, possibly through the provision of a leisure pilots licence similar to the UK NPPL but recognised across Europe. Respondents should note, however, that EASA will need to establish instrument rating requirements that are appropriate for European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.

[Andy_RR]

Two questions:

- So I presume you can access Class A IFR in an N-reg with an FAA Instrument Rating and this is acceptable, but to do so G-reg with an equivalent IR is not acceptable - what am I missing here?

- Why does meteorology change from one side of the pond to the other?

[172driver]

- Why does meteorology change from one side of the pond to the other?

It doesn't - it's just that some tossers in Gatwick and assorted other places have to protect their jobs. Simple, really :ugh:

[IO540]

Drauk - thank you for the repost here.

Andy - you are not missing anything; the answer is

- European gold plating of everything;

- European protectionism.

- The need to save face

Nothing new here. The FAA IR is perfectly suitable for flying European airways, as I and many others know too well.

This is excellent news, of course. A victory of common sense, but one which was never assured despite the unbelievable stupidity (not to mention impossibility of enforcement) of the DfT 90-day proposal.

It's not finished yet though. EASA has a similar objective but not only is this a few years away (for practical reasons) but it will also require a much wider consensus. Any move against N-reg is likely to get wrapped up in EASA's Euro-wide PPL and airframe certification ambitions, and their stated intention to somehow swap an FAA IR for some sort of an EASA IR.

Edit: maybe it's now time to give our wonderful democratic government a ladder on which all the Cambridge Arts graduates can quietly climb down and get back into their cubicles.

[Justiciar]

appropriate for European operations and weather conditions and that previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.

Of course this is absolute garbage. This is the government furiously back tracking because there was not a shread of evidence that N reg was any less safe. As for "european operations and weather conditions":


The US has far greater extremes of weather than Europe
The US has higher mountains than Europe
The US has more GA than Europe
Every commercial pilot of a US registered commercial aircraft flying into Europe will be doing so on an FAA IR and not a JAR IR
The FAA IR is an ICAO compliant rating which the UK and Europe are bound to recognise as signatories to ICAO, in so far as it relates to IFR in N reg aircraft


The conclusions are indeed nonsense and the truth is there is no rational reason for distinguishing between N reg for private operations and N reg commercial traffic, which neither the CAA nor europe can do anything about. However, this will not in practice stop EASA trying to limit the scope for N reg (or indeed other registrations, such as Russia) from being permanently based in Europe. I believe that the US in fact has a similar rule, so a precedent has been set:(

[rustle]

Every commercial pilot of a US registered commercial aircraft flying into Europe will be doing so on an FAA IR and not a JAR IR

You were doing well until you wandered off onto fantasy island with that comment. ;)

One of the things people moan about in relation to the JAA IR is that it's [flight] requirements are the same as the ATPL.

Not so the FAA IR: The flight requirements are not the same as the FAA ATP (which I would assume the Captain [at least] of all these commercial flights you refer to has)

[Pilot-H]

Gentlemen; they are all ICAO I/R's and they all give access to all classes of airspace internationally.

One's access rights to airspace don't change in FAA land or elsewhere dependent upon whether the underlying certificate is Private, Commercial, or ATP.

[IO540]

I don't think there is much point in dissecting this DfT letter, beyond the essential statement that N-reg is here to stay until EASA gets going.

It was written by somebody who has almost certainly never touched a light aircraft with a bargepole, briefed by somebody from the CAA who may have done but whose salary and civil service pension depends on maintaining the revenue stream and who has spent his entire aviation career either in the RAF or in the CAA and there you have the attitude that "British is best" and "Americans are cowboys".

Those of us who fly IFR around Europe for real know perfectly well that any anti-FAA/IR bias is a load of bo**ocks. The FAA PPL/IR is perfectly suitable for the job.

[tmmorris]

the Government has also taken note of the many constructive responses suggesting that Government action should instead focus on the reasons why people choose to place their aircraft on the US register and on disincentives to UK registration.

I see no evidence in paragraphs six and seven that the Government has done any such thing. They may be hearing, but they aren't listening.

Tim

[nouseforaname]

It's great news anyway. When EASA come out with their new IR requirements in 2020, and then find schools which will carry out syllabus then I might concider doing it!

[unfazed]

work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.

Who are these "experts" and have they missed the point ? The FAA IR rating is currently acceptable and valid for flying in class A airspace in Europe, how can they publish such rubbish ?:\

[scooter boy]

[quote=unfazed;2953404]work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.

Once again a demonstration that anti-FAA/IR bigotry pervades the highest levels of aviation decision making over here - surprise, surprise!

As usual envy driven and based in imagined inadequacies of a busier system that works very well the majority of the time.

The real inadequacy here is on the part of the states who cannot provide an accessible alternative to the FAA/IR route.

The preponderance of N-registered aircraft in Europe is a symptom of a poor European system, not a disease in its own right.

I wonder how much this consultation and the time of the "experts" cost us?

SB

[englishal]

Funnily enough, when I am over in California in a couple of weeks, the FAA deem me competent enough to share the airways with the likes of BA262 coming from London, so I wonder why the Europeans don't think I am safe enough to share their airways with BA 262 on its return leg......

In FAA land, to command any aircraft that requires a type rating, you must fly to ATP standards, even if you don't have an ATP. For scheduled ops, to act as co pilot you must take the FAA SIC check ride, which again is flow to ATP standards.........

[Justiciar]

In FAA land, to command any aircraft that requires a type rating, you must fly to ATP standards, even if you don't have an ATP. For scheduled ops, to act as co pilot you must take the FAA SIC check ride, which again is flow to ATP standards.........

So, are the DoT and Europe right then? As a stand alone rating held by a PPL, is the overall skill level less than the JAA IR and therefore less appropriate for more crowded European skies? Whatever the Americans are prepared to tolerate in their own skies (PPLs with IRs mixing with heavy jets in class A airspace) are the Europeans right to say that they require what they would undoubtedly argue is the higher standard of the JAA IR? If so, does restricting the permanent establishment of N reg aircraft then become a legitimate means of cutting down on PPLs with FAA IRs flying IFR around Europe?

I am trying to generate some debate here. I don't know enough about the FAA IR standards to express opinions and clearly there are many here that do.

[Justiciar]

What about the general amount of flying required: 40 as against 55 hours I believe, with previous instrument time (e.g. IMC rating) being counted for the FAA IR but not the JAA?

[IO540]

Very good questions, Justiciar.

So, are the DoT and Europe right then? As a stand alone rating held by a PPL, is the overall skill level less than the JAA IR and therefore less appropriate for more crowded European skies?

They are completely wrong.

The key to this is what type of aircraft the FAA requires a Type Rating for. You are looking at jets, certainly, and I believe also turboprops. Under G-reg, anything pressurised requires a Type Rating, AFAIK. None of these make any sense flown without an IR anyway, for airspace/performance reasons.

In the piston context, this is irrelevant, however.

No way are European skies more crowded than US skies. In the piston type IFR/airways levels, FL080-FL180 (FL250 possibly, exceptionally) there is virtually no traffic outside the busy terminal areas, and you don't normally get Eurocontrol-acceptable routes through the middle of those anyway. On a typical 700nm flight from the s. UK to somewhere in Eastern Europe (thus passing straight through the busiest areas e.g. Brussels and Frankfurt) you will almost certainly not get visual with even one other plane - apart from some jets at FL350 or whatever - for the whole trip!! And this is on a weekday, or a weekend. It's quite staggering how little traffic there is, below the jet transport levels.

GA traffic in particular is close to nonexistent in the airways. The word "congestion" is just plain silly. The pilot workload is normally so low that you could sit there reading a book. Every 15-30 minutes you get a new frequency, and occassionally (like flying through the busy Birmingham/Manchester areas) you get a series of vectors.

It's a different situation if you have a slow turboprop (or a slow jets, and all the new "light jets" will be relatively slow) flying at say FL300-350. That will get in the way of jet transport traffic, and this is reflected in some lousy routings which ATC will give these people. I have no experience of this personally but I know turboprop pilots (King Air etc) who frequently moan about that. This will in turn drop major spanners into the advertised performance/range figures for the new light jets (and this is true in both Europe and USA) but this isn't a safety issue, of course.

The min flyight training time is irrelevant. You have to reach the standard, which for the FAA IR is pretty tough. Personally, I took about 20hrs to do the IMCR, then (a few years later) did another 10-15 in the UK towards the FAA IR, then did another 25 in the USA to finish the IR. I think this is fairly average, for someone who is spreading out the ratings to slot into his "other life". Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter stadard of flying in your checkride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed.

[Justiciar]

IO540:

Thats very usefull, thanks

[dublinpilot]

previous work by experts indicates that requirements based on the FAA instrument rating would not be acceptable for an instrument rating which gives access to class A airspace.

So is their any proposal to ban FAA/IR pilots with N reg aircraft from class A airspace, since they are so dangerous? :=

Perhaps the Dept are happy to allow these dangerous pilots with insufficient training to continue to operate in the class A airspace?

Perhaps they ought to resign for preciding over a system that allowed such dangerous activity to take place in the first place and putting the traveling publics lives at risk, never mind being allowed to continue.

Of course I can enter much class A airspace on my PPL, with nothing more than a SEP-Land class rating, under Special VFR. Of course my training would be much more suitable than those pescy FAA/IR pilots :ugh:

Every time I go to the Channel Islands, I'm always scared that one of those poorly trained FAA/IR's might crash into me. They really should be banned from the class A airspace! :ugh:

Now.....where's the sarcasm smiley?

dp

[rustle]

...You have to reach the standard, which for the FAA IR is pretty tough...
...Once you start flying for real, you are only as good as your recent currency and what you did in your training soon fades into the distant past. This is another reason why a somewhat tighter standard of flying in your check ride between the FAA PPL/IR and the FAA ATPL becomes irrelevant once a few weeks have passed...

Maybe someone should ask the Europeans what they perceive the problem to be.

It might not be the issue that fresh-minted FAA IRs are not acceptable to the Europeans but that 13 month old self-certified ones aren't. Or that 26 month old self-cert ones aren't. Or that 25 year old non ME tested ones aren't.

That's a significant departure from the CAA/JAA requirements of annual retests (including asymmetric in the case of ME). A far more significant departure than the flying standard required in the IRT...

[mm_flynn]

So, are the DoT and Europe right then? As a stand alone rating held by a PPL, is the overall skill level less than the JAA IR and therefore less appropriate for more crowded European skies?

I had a look at some stats which seem to indicate that New York TRACON handles more IFR flights than the whole of NATS. In addition, the movement data indicate that there are more IFR ops out of the New York area airports than the London ones (airports selected within the same radius to include Luton and Stansted). So it is probably more acurate to say that the FAA/IR isn't appropriate for the less crowded skys of Europe. As IO said, enroute European airspace is veryempty compared to US. The DfT do have a fair call that European (London in particular) airspace is more complex than US!.

As others have said the flying skills of the to IR's seem pretty similar (tighter ILS and NDB requriements for JAA and more on the fly responding and planning (i.e no canned routes) in the US) and besides that, you are not really very likely to have an NDB approach into an airport in class A.:)

[IO540]

rustle

Maybe someone should ask the Europeans what they perceive the problem to be. It might not be the issue that fresh-minted FAA IRs are not acceptable to the Europeans but that 13 month old self-certified ones aren't. Or that 26 month old self-cert ones aren't. Or that 25 year old non ME tested ones aren't.

Who do you think is a better pilot?

a) One who does 100-200hrs/year IFR and runs on the FAA rolling currency regime, or

b) One who flies 20hrs/year IFR (like an awful lot of CAA/JAA IRs do) keeping to very good weather only, and has an IR checkride every year

A CAA employee would say b) is a better pilot but that is the "ivory tower" mentality, which is IMHO completely wrong.

The JAA IR is so hard to get (in the context of slotting the huge ground school into a normal working person's life) that very few noncommercial people are doing it. So, with the FAA route being preferred to most owners (and being an owner is the only real way to do decent hours) it follows that those that have a valid one are probably low time pilots, so they do need the annual checkride ;)

Of course this kind of reasoning is a world away from the officialdom. The CAA man would just say that a pilot can forge his entire logbook and that an annual checkride is the only way to keep a lid on that. This doesn't seem to be a problem in the USA, however, where 75% of the world's GA lives (source: recent EASA report). Very very occassionally they uncover some logging irregularity but it is very rare to conclude that this was possibly a factor in some incident.

Most FAA IR pilots I know do loads of hours; more than I do. Some do 500hrs/year (in TB20s and such). This is not mirrored, by a long way, by JAA IR holders that I know of.

[slim_slag]

rustle,

I suppose my response would be that if there was a safety based case for regular reviews of IR holders then the FAA would mandate it. After all, they do this with a BFR, so they understand the concept, it's not just a CAA/JAA thing.

The significant departure from the CAA approach is that once you have got your IR the FAA consider you competent and responsible until proven otherwise, whereas the CAA don't,

[rustle]

IO, there's no point having a go at me - I don't make the rules up I just live with(in) them and all I am trying to do is broaden the discussion about this from the idiotic "747s into Heathrow" level to a slightly more realistic "well there must be something they [Europeans] don't like, so let's try and see what that might be"

I don't care who's more likely to be current, who's the better pilot, who has the most hours per annum etc.

I was attempting to have a discussion about why JAA/EASA might have taken the view they have. Jesus we've all heard a billion times why you think they've taken the line they have :rolleyes:

You know why stupid sayings about "second engine takes you to the scene of the crash" come about? They come about through misinformation. They come about through the same tired, worn-out BS that gets trotted out every time someone says anything about twins/MEP.

It's the same with the tired BS about 747s into Heathrow. Every time someone wants to have a discussion about instrument ratings someone starts with the "well it's good enough to fly 747s into [JFK/HRW/LAX/WANK]" and I, personally, don't think that moves the discussion forwards very much.

But hey, what do I know. (Well I do know that if the rules said I need a Martian IR to fly on Mars I'd make time to get a Martian IR if I lived on Mars and wanted to fly on Mars; but that's just me)

If that is seen as an "attack on" or "devaluation of" or [insert paranoid view of life here against] FAA IRs or similar by people (as some moron on Flyer seems to keep harping on about) then that's more a reflection on them than me. IMHO of course.

[rustle]

rustle,

I suppose my response would be that if there was a safety based case for regular reviews of IR holders then the FAA would mandate it. After all, they do this with a BFR, so they understand the concept, it's not just a CAA/JAA thing.

The significant departure from the CAA approach is that once you have got your IR the FAA consider you competent and responsible until proven otherwise, whereas the CAA don't,

In relation to MEP retesting I believe there is a safety case and I believe it can be found in the NTSB records. However I also believe that the lobbying against any such move (against private pilots) would be significant and ultimately successful, so the FAA don't pursue it. A bit like the lobbying by the NRA if someone threatened to take away guns. ;)

As for the CAA/JAA/EASA attitude to retesting -vs- pilot self-certifying my own view is that both have inherent weaknesses (self-certifying can be practising bad habits without anyone to pull them up on it (no asymmetric esp.) -vs- retesting could be minimal hours p.a. etc.)

I do think though that the long-term difference between the two (FAA/JAA) are more pronounced than the immediate "on qualification" differences, especially in relation to MEP ops, and that the Europeans will stick to their guns [no pun intended ;)] unless it can be shown that isn't an issue.

If FAA IR holders were granted JAA IRs but then had to re-validate their JAA IRs in line with JAA requirements would that still be a huge problem? (Obviously to maintain your FAA validation you'd have to do whatever the FAA require, but apparently that already happens so the only addition would be the annual retest. In a MEP if you want MEP IR privs.)

[mm_flynn]

"well there must be something they [Europeans] don't like, so let's try and see what that might be"

I think the candidates from the rumour mill are


The self certification of the FAA is a problem
FAA/IR flying requirements are not sufficient
The lack of NDB holding expertise in the FAA programme is a concern
There is a fundamental cultural difference in qualifications where Europe is based on Apprenticeship formal coursework and extensive examination and America is based on demonstrated competence
The weather is more difficult here (or maybe data is less readily available)
IR flying really needs to be done by people with 'Jet Type Rating' knowledge
The ATC infrastructure can't support a significant amount of GA getting enroute services
The fact that most PPL/IRs are probably in sub 2 tonnes means they aren't paying for the service so shouldn't be allowed
It is a club with an initiation process and we (club members) don't want to change it
The FAA way wasn't invented over here so isn't good enough



Some of these are clearly :mad: , some would never be admitted to, some might be true. Anyone with contacts, knowledge, or ideas of how to move from idle speculation to some knowledge?

[IO540]

rustle

I was attempting to have a discussion about why JAA/EASA might have taken the view they have

I agree with your objective.

The basic problem is that we have no idea where this "view" comes from, or even whether it is anybody's view at all. We don't know that JAA or EASA has actually taken any view whatsoever.

These organisations have various spokespersons which emit press statements fairly randomly. Some more credible than others, according to who it is. But by the time we get to hear about it, the credibility (in the sense of whether it is official policy, or any policy at all) cannot be established.

Example: an EASA man went public a few months ago, saying their long term objective was to accept FAA IRs as a straight swap for JAA IRs. Very sensible and amazingly progressive (without details, hard to say more) but sure to make any old-style Brit or German revolve in his grave at 2400RPM. I mean, if they accepted FAA certification as well, and there were no silly details (like charging £5000 for a new G-reg CofA, and CAA-style placarding of an IFR GPS with an "enroute only" sticker) the N-reg scene would dry up very fast indeed.

There are loads of silly statements going around. I went to a NATS presentation a while ago, and they announced that the CAA is going to ban all single-pilot jet flights in UK airspace. The ATCO clearly thought this was a good idea. Presumably this originated inside the CAA, but which bit? It may have been a private CAA view, or something said at a CAA briefing to NATS. Anybody with a brain (and most CAA people are individually quite competent) knows this is plain silly. It would exclude most Cessna Citations from UK airspace, for starters. (It was made in the context of scare stories about "hundreds" of these new fangled "light jets" clogging up UK airspace). In the same context, Germany made a similar "proposal" this year to require an ATPL for all jets in German airspace :yuk:

Blatent anti-FAA prejudices are everywhere. Get almost any CAA or NATS or DfT man talking and you'll get enough to fill your bag. Thankfully, they never get very far because at some stage somebody who knows the international picture, and the politics of doing it, looks at them and quietly chucks them out. Like has happened with the latest DfT kick-out-N-reg proposal. On the face of it that was totally barmy from day 1, but it travelled a suprisingly long way.

If FAA IR holders were granted JAA IRs but then had to re-validate their JAA IRs in line with JAA requirements would that still be a huge problem?

Probably not.

But this kind of stuff (basically, EASA taking over FCL totally) is so far down the road that this sort of discussion is IMHO pointless.

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle

I don’t know the FAA position on multi renewals. I assume form your post they are something other than our annual revalidation?

If this is so, then it would be interesting to know the regime in which this works. In the UK asy currency is discouraged (strongly) without an instructor. The annual revalidation provides a good opportunity for some refresher training, and is probably about the right length of time to ensure all pilots have a reasonable chance of surviving an engine out. Self certification would clearly not work because pilots are not self reviewing asy procedures, and two years is almost certainly too long.

The analogy is instrument ops. Self certification is all very well but for those pilots that only just meet the minimum requirements the number of approaches flown are pitifully few, and there is no requirement on their part to self certify abnormal ops. even if it were safe, sensible or possible for them to do so without an instructor on board. How many accidents could be avoided by insisting on an annual revalidation I wonder? Reading the FAA reports there would seem to be little doubt there are a fair few accidents in IMC that are almost certainly only attributable to the skill failure of the pilot, in circumstances that you would expect an average instrument rated pilot to have avoided the problem. Would his chances have improved if the State had insisted on an annual check of competence?

Cynically, I suppose it boils down to the States right to impose itself on your right to kill yourself! I know one could argue that the State also has a right to protect the GP and any passengers the pilot might have with him. I cant remember the last time I read an incident report in the States where a pilot came down in instrument conditions and killed anyone, however there are a fair few cases where the passengers didn’t do too well.

Of course in the States the other factor has increasingly become the influence insurers are having.
Here, a ticket from the regulatory authority is almost always enough to get insured to do what it says on the pack, and moreover additional training doesn’t have much effect on the premiums. In the States insurers are increasingly requiring pilots to undertake ongoing currency reviews in order to obtain insurance (or obtain insurance at a sensible cost) on anything more complex or with two engines. This framework presumably does not exist in Europe because insurers do not load FAA IR premiums because they assume an FAA IR pilot is every bit as competent as his UK counterpart even though he might be self certifying his competency.

I would agree that comparing any of this with commercial pilots operating on an FAA ticket or any other ticket for that matter is totally irrelevant. There are very few similarities between the highly controlled environment in which commercial pilots operate and the average “amateur”.

I would have thought there might be one other vital difference between Europe and the States. IR tickets in the States are common, and so are the aircraft in which to use them in earnest. This obviously can result in some IR ticketed pilots meeting the minimium requirements (or certainly before the insurers got more involved) and flying in conditions in which they had no business to be. On the other hand most IR pilots in Europe of whatever complexion have made a serious committment to operate in these conditions because of the additional cost involved. Once again other factors may be operating which might just mean European FAA IR pilots are doing a better job that American FAA IR holders?

[IO540]

Fuji

a fair few accidents in IMC that are almost certainly only attributable to the skill failure of the pilot, in circumstances that you would expect an average instrument rated pilot to have avoided the problem

Isn't that true for 99% of crashes (mechanical failure excluded)?

One could make a very long list of airliner crashes which were caused by mistakes so stupid that nobody should have made them.

Like that Boeing 757 which ditched (drowning everybody) because somebody taped over the static vents, and in which neither pilot seemed to know the most basic things about the pitot static system. Two very current ATPs flying that one.

[Fuji Abound]

Isn't that true for 99% of crashes (mechanical failure excluded)?

It is, but as you know what I was trying to get at is at what point does recurrency training avoid one or two or more of these accidents?

I dont profess to know the answer. Nor have I ever been convinced the periods chosen here or there are based on any hard evidence.

What I do know from flying with other pilots is many are poor at practising abnormal ops. In my opinion the right balance of recurrency training should help avoid some of these accidents.

[rustle]

Rustle

I don’t know the FAA position on multi renewals. I assume form your post they are something other than our annual revalidation?

If this is so, then it would be interesting to know the regime in which this works. In the UK asy currency is discouraged (strongly) without an instructor. The annual revalidation provides a good opportunity for some refresher training, and is probably about the right length of time to ensure all pilots have a reasonable chance of surviving an engine out. Self certification would clearly not work because pilots are not self reviewing asy procedures, and two years is almost certainly too long.

For the avoidance of any doubt, if you gain an FAA multi rating (or whatever it is called) you might never ever be re-tested in asymmetric flight ever again; even if you were tested on asymmetric for initial issue.

Ditto an FAA IR on a multi (I don't believe there is actually such a beast, AFAIK the IR applies to whatever you are allowed to fly) - through self-cert you will never be re-tested asymmetric, and even if you forget to self-cert and need a flight test to regain IR rights you could do that in a SEP (cheaper) then jump back in a MEP as an IR. (Obviously a JAA IR doesn't work like that as if you want MEP IR rights you have to be examined in a MEP. ME-IR is valid in a SEP in JAA land)

Ironic that the "second engine takes you to the scene of the crash" tag-line started in the US. ;)

[421C]

Maybe someone should ask the Europeans what they perceive the problem to be.

It might not be the issue that fresh-minted FAA IRs are not acceptable to the Europeans but that 13 month old self-certified ones aren't. Or that 26 month old self-cert ones aren't. Or that 25 year old non ME tested ones aren't.

That's a significant departure from the CAA/JAA requirements of annual retests (including asymmetric in the case of ME). A far more significant departure than the flying standard required in the IRT...

In that case, why don't they accept the FAA IR training regime or convert FAA IRs to JAA IRs and then impose the recurrent training standards?

The GA objections to JAR-FCL are little to do with either the IRT standard or the renewal requirements. It's all the bureaucracy and micro-regulation of the training process and FTOs that imposes cost and makes it impractical for people who aren't full-time airline cadets.

Personally, I don't believe it's anything to do with GA safety. Developing JAR-FCL was a time, resource and politically constrained process with one overriding priority - creating a 250hr Frozen ATPL training regime acceptable to both the airlines and the regulators. The advanced training needs of GA didn't get a look in.

[youngskywalker]

What an enormous amount of 'bs' is spouted on this web site and around flying schools in the UK regarding the ongoing JAA is better than FAA crap...those who critisize the FAA system the most seem to be those who have no knowledge whatsover of how things are done in FAA land. Neither JAA or FAA systems are perfect, perhaps a new one that took the best of both and combined them would be the answer?! Incidentaly there is such a thing as an FAA multi IR, I did both my CPL and IR on a twin and consequently I have no single engine licence whatsoever. (If an FAA pilot passes the IR on a single then they must do another IR flight test on a multi, albeit all you have to demonstrate is a single engine approach.) Also I am made to demonstrate my ability to handle and engine out on every BFR and IPC. So far I havn't yet managed to kill myself, although I admit now that I'm flying in Britain the weather is so much more difficult and of course tracking VOR's/NDB's is almost beyond my IR and god forbid I try and fly an ILS!!
For me gentlemen, time is running out :rolleyes:

Edited to agree with the next post, I would have no problem accepting the same revalidation as the JAA IR. Like I said neither system is without flaws. We all share one thing in common and that is we love to fly, perhaps we could all work together and respect each others licences and ratings for the personal achievements they are. It's hard sometimes stay quiet when you perceive that some people de-value the licence you worked so hard to achieve.

[Fuji Abound]

I think some may be missing the point.

I dont think this thread has become is FAA anything better than JAA anything.

I would hope it is a more mature expression of opinion by those on both sides of the fence (or even those with a foot in both sides) about the pros and cons of each system and whether given these pros and cons there is any justification what so ever for the comments made at the start of this thread.

In short (and leaving completely aside whether or not the initial FAA or JAA IR training is better or more relevant)

1. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that IR pilots can self certify?

2. Are there features of the way FAA IR pilots operate in Europe or America (such as perhaps the requirment of insurance companies that I mentioned or the type of pilot that we see with an FAA IR in Europe) that makes one different from the other?

3. Is it satisfactory that an IR pilot should never have to revalidate his rating or is the instrument review every two years sufficient?

I think it is the answer to these questions which would give an insight into whether or not the greater revalidation that goes on in Europe is justified or as some would say complete BS! I think unless these questions can be answered the regulator may have an arguement that whilst both are ICAO compliant ratings, the recurrent training of each is sufficient to justify the opinion expressed. (and I suspect the vast majority would accept that the easy solution would be to recognise the FAA IR but require the same re-current training as that required for a European IR).

I think that was the issue Rustle may have had in mind.

[421C]

1. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that IR pilots can self certify?

Yes it is a good thing on 2 grounds (although I would not call it self-certification. It is an absence of a renewal requirement for pilots who maintain IFR currency).
Firstly, because it is part of a safety philosophy in which pilots are personally accountable, rather than a philosphy of forms, processes, rules and micro-managing regulators being accountable. It is a philosophy that does not automatically equate more rules and requirements with more safety. I can't find a way of not making this sound patronising, please forgive me, but I sometimes think that in Europe we are so indoctrinated with the idea that safety must be imposed by regulations that the idea of "self-certification" sounds intrisically dangerous. Secondly, it is a good thing (which we don't have to debate from first principles) because a giant controlled experiment which has been running for 10 years (since the start of JAR-FCL) on either side of the atlantic suggests it is. The US GA accident rate is as good as the best European countries. Owner-flown business GA (mainly by self-certifying IFR pilots) has an accident rate 4 times better than Personal/Recreational GA and thus, approx, 4 times better than the best European GA.

2. Are there features of the way FAA IR pilots operate in Europe or America (such as perhaps the requirment of insurance companies that I mentioned or the type of pilot that we see with an FAA IR in Europe) that makes one different from the other?

I don't think so. Firstly, AOPA US will tell you that the majority of US PPL-IRs are not current - they do the rating and then lapse. The typical active PPL-IR in the US is probably not very different from the European based FAA PPL-IRs, especially in recent years when it has become more common in the UK for lower time, "lighter" aircraft PPLs to go the FAA route.

On the insurance point, the FAA IR actually gets you a discount in the US. It's aircraft types (retractables, advanced twins) that have more onerous insurance requirements.

3. Is it satisfactory that an IR pilot should never have to revalidate his rating or is the instrument review every two years sufficient?

I stand by my earlier comment that the safety record of the US, in which a single county in Florida or California probably has more PPL-IRs than the whole of the UK, speaks for itself.


the recurrent training of each is sufficient to justify the opinion expressed. (and I suspect the vast majority would accept that the easy solution would be to recognise the FAA IR but require the same re-current training as that required for a European IR).

I think that was the issue Rustle may have had in mind


I am not sure why the debate has got so focused on the recurrent stuff when the entire GA history of opposition to the JAA IR, and every reason I have heard for a European pilot to go the FAA route, is based on the excessive initial training requirements, in particular for theoretical knowledge. Equally, it is these initial training requirements that the JAA refuses to relent on, including recent occassions when the whole topic was reviewed with representatives from flight training organisations. Despite Rustle's concern of "misinformation" on the comparison with FAA Airline captains flying into Heathrow, the fact is that the major, substantive points (eg. how training is conducted and the requirements to take a theory or flight test) that lead Europeans to use the FAA system are common to FAA PPL IRs and ATPLs.

[englishal]

Everybody has, and is entitled to their own views. What worries me is that some of the people in charge of making legislation are not educated very well in the matters they are legislating against.

There is not one iota of evidence which suggests that an annual review makes things safer.......

For the record, I do an FAA IPC every two years, despite being legally current, primarily to get my IMC revalidated as the CAA recognise this as a "TEST", and also becasue I don't want to kill myself. My choice you see, I am old enough and have enough common sense to make these critical decisions myself. I'm going to do one in a few week, in a MEP.

Also, regarding the MEP rating in the USA, it is very doubtful that you will be able to rent a twin unless you have 100's of hours ME time (unlike the UK), so this is a form of self regulation. If you are well off enough to own a twin, it is likely you will actually fly it 100's of hours per year anyway (or route sectors or whatever the JAR terminology is).

[slim_slag]

In relation to MEP retesting I believe there is a safety case and I believe it can be found in the NTSB records.Can you provide a link to your specific claim relating to MEP operations?

I've found a NTSB Letter (http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/2005/A05_24_29.pdf) which might be of interest to you.

Given the caveatThe Safety Board emphasizes that the conclusions reached in this study are not based on a summary of accident cases, although the merits of such Board studies have proven valuable in the past. Rather, the results are based on a statistical comparison of accident and nonaccident flights that allows for the generalization of findings from this study to the wider population of GA pilots and flights that may be at risk for a weather related accident.it does go on to recommend some IR related training be carried out in the BFR.Add a specific requirement for all pilots who do not receive weatherrelated recurrent training, that the biennial flight review include the following: recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts, determination of fuel requirements, and planning for alternatives if the intended flight cannot be completed or delays are encountered. (A-05-024)

For pilots holding a private, commercial, or airline transport pilot certificate in the airplane category who do not receive recurrent instrument training, add a specific requirement that the biennial flight review include a demonstration of control and maneuvering of an airplane solely by reference to instruments, including straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a heading, and recovery from unusual flight attitudes. (A-05-025)So looks like the NTSB are indeed thinking along the lines of requiring a recurrent review of instrument skills. Note they haven't suggested a complete re-test attitude like what might exist elsewhere. As they haven't done so I would assume that the NTSB consider that to be unnecessary. So what you should really be doing is lobbying the CAA/JAA/EASA to remove unneccesarily expensive requirements to your ability to fly IFR.

If you read all the NTSB recommendations through the years then a large number relate to provdiing proper weather briefing and ATC services to GA IFR. It appears that Europe is light years behind the States in this regard, so perhaps the European regulators should prioritise their resources on fixing that. However I also believe that the lobbying against any such move (against private pilots) would be significant and ultimately successful, so the FAA don't pursue it.That is just showing your prejudices against an extremely well respected and safe regulatory system. AOPA may agressively counter a lot of changes the regulators want to foist on GA, but when it comes to safety they tend to be proactive. What evidence do you have that AOPA would block mandatory instrument flying and weather training in a BFR?

And of course the contents of a BFR is up to the instructor and pilot and supposed to be tailored to the flying the pilot does. There is nothing to prevent flying under the hood in a BFR, and I know it happens.

[IO540]

The CAA could also learn some pretty basic statistical methods from the NTSB - quote:

This study employed the case control methodology, which compared a group of accident flights to a matching group of nonaccident flights to identify patterns of variables that distinguished the two groups from each other. Safety Board air safety investigators (ASI) collected data from 72 GA accidents that occurred in IMC or marginal visual conditions between August 2003 and April 2004.When accidents occurred, study managers also contacted pilots of flights that were operating in the vicinity at the time of those accidents for information about their flight activity. A total of 135 nonaccident flights were included in the study.

[my bold]

[Fuji Abound]

"There is not one iota of evidence which suggests that an annual review makes things safer......."

That has always been my impression.

421C - thank you for a very interesting analysis of the facts.

On one minor point it still seems to me that in the States the insurance companies are having an impact on the job pilots do. On the basis that many of the pilots who fly IFR in the States regularly will do so on more advanced types the recurrence training on which I gather many insurers are insisting is presumably helping pilots to deal with unexpected problems. Moreover does this suggest that on more complex types the insurance companies consider they have evidence to support that pilots who undergo recurrence training are likely to have few accidents or is their some other motivation at work?

Is this considered to be a good thing?

[rustle]

The interesting thing about self regulating through insurance is that whilst that may be the case within the US, it is not the case for an FAA ME pilot outside the US (in the UK for example).

In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.

[IO540]

It's changing in the UK.

4 years ago my insurer (Haywards) didn't care whether I had 10hrs+PPL or 1000hrs+CPL/IR. Today they certainly do. At my next renewal I will have 700hrs+CPL/IR and expect to get a nice discount.

It pays to ask your broker; if you don't tell him about your current hours, etc, he will never know.

There is a big story in the USA that fixed gear planes are cheaper to insure, and this has been a big plank in Cirrus/Lancair marketing, but this sure as hell doesn't show up on SR22 premiums versus say TB20 premiums; for the same pilot. One example I saw was 3x less for the TB20.

[slim_slag]

The interesting thing about self regulating through insurance is that whilst that may be the case within the US, it is not the case for an FAA ME pilot outside the US (in the UK for example).

In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.

You are going to love this rustle, you better sit down first though.

There is no FAA requirement to have insurance.

Coming from a nanny state you must wonder how it all works.

As most pilots are sensible when it comes to looking after their lives and houses, the answer is very well indeed.

[421C]

The interesting thing about self regulating through insurance is that whilst that may be the case within the US, it is not the case for an FAA ME pilot outside the US (in the UK for example).

In those cases there is neither the statutory blunt instrument of annual check flights, nor monetary incentive through insurance only being available if current and with 100s of hours on type.


Perhaps this has occurred to the insurance companies. My insurers are AXA. They are not a small business and they employ actuaries who may know more about risk assessment than even the commentators on this forum. If they do not differentiate in premiums between the JAR regime and the FAA one for operations in Europe, perhaps, despite all your concerns, it is because there is no safety issue, as the Dft admitted in its original consultation.

[Julian]

I have no problem in demonstating my IR skills in a BFR and in fact this has previously been incorporated into the BFR when the instructor knows I hold an IR and intend to do a bit of touring. As EA points out its all down to common sense and if you are comfortable that the flight you are about to undertake is within your limits - if it is not then prehaps you need to visit an instructor for a couple of hours. I also undertake a full IPC every 2 years if I need one or not.

The other point in favour of demonstrating your instrument skills in a BFR or IPC is that you are not forking out thousands to line the pocket of a JAA Examiner and the flight school. A BFR normally lasts 1-1.5 hours at normal rates, an IPC will set you back 3-4 hours at, again, normal instructor rates. NOTE : An FAA examiner (and therefore a JAA exmainer if this option was adopted in the UK), not required!

The JAA IR is not only expensive to obtain but expensive to keep.

[flyingfemme]

I'm going to do one in a few week, in a MEP.
Also, regarding the MEP rating in the USA............

You've been indoctrinated, Al.

There's no such thing as an MEP rating in FAA land. Do it in a Kingair, if your wallet will stand it! ;)

[englishal]

Doh....sorry! Yea, I could indeed do it in a turbine powered King Air.....

[David Roberts]

Catching up after long absence from the forum. One reason, I have been busy as a nominated expert on one of the EASA work groups, the oddly named MDM.032 (MDM=Multi Disciplinary Measure, which makes it sound like school detention). The initial work (since March 06) of MDM.032 was published as an Advance NPA in August and by the mid October deadline for responses we had c. 4,500 to read !

I just wanted to give you all a small insight into EASA and its thinking, and also the current state of play as regards licensing and ops. The proposed extension of EASA's scope to licensing and operations (known as COM 579) is currently being considered by the Aviation Working Party of the Council of Ministers, which meets again this Monday. This WP is made up of civil service reps from each member state (UK - DfT where the rep is well briefed by us), supported by the technical expertise of the respective National Aviation Authorities. The plan is for COM 579 to go to the EU Parliament in January 07.

A few of us in the light aviation community in Europe (I am a board member of Europe Air Sports, which alongside IAOPA and ECOGAS are the only pan European GA organisations officially recognised by the EU institutions) have spent the last few years, in my case as a volunteer, getting to know the people at EASA and working with them to try and develop a fresh approach to regulation. I think - cautiously - it is beginning to work. But the way the European system of regulation and rule making works, with the various institutions and processes, there is no guarantee that EASA's thinking will be the final determining factor in the outcome. That is evident in the present events around COM 579 where amendments are being proposed to the Basic Regulation (1592/2002) right now that generate the 'law of unintended consequences' because of a lack of detailed knowledge of our (light aviation) sector. We are doing what we can to inform, but it is not easy operating at a distance from the decision makers. The stage the process is at means that EASA no longer has a direct say in any proposed changes, though they may be consulted by the Commission and / or Council WP.

Anyway, enough background. If the Council and Parliament reach agreement on the text to extend EASA's role in early 2007, that will set what are called the Essential Requirements for Licensing and Ops. In other words the high level EU legal framework. The next stage is for EASA to draft the Implementing Rules (IRs - rather confusingly, in view of this thread's interest in Instrument Ratings) and supporting Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMCs) and Guidance Material (GM). Over the last year, probably as a result of collective representations on various matters, EASA decided to bring experts from the light aviation industry into the working groups that draft the IRs, AMCs and GM. They recognise we know a great deal about how things actually are and how they need to be, and EASA is keen to utilise our knowledge. So, as a so-called 'industry expert' (actually from a UK air sport governing body and chairman of NPLG Ltd) I am in a position to try and get a resolution to the FAA / JAA IR problem.

The MDM.032 group will be concerned with IRs, AMC and GM for the < 2000kg MTOM aircraft category, for which there will be a new licence based more than likely, at least for the most part, on the UK NPPL framework but with some extension of rights and limited to non-commercial operations. The original threshold proposed for this new licence was < 5700kg but that proved politically unacceptable to the Council, so a compromise was reached. It will be pan European for one thing. And the intention is that it should have an Instrument Rating, whereas the UK NPPL does not (yet). A separate group (FCL.001), including industry experts, will be dealing with the transfer of JAR FCL into EU Implementing Rules for aircraft > 2000kg MTOM and < 5700kg. My guess is that EASA will not want to take risks of political interference in that process and will want to make changes, after due consultation, after the transfer, not during it (read that bit carefully!). The Implementing Rules will go through a public consultation stage - currently forecast for late summer 2007 - and they have to be agreed by the Commission, but not by the Council or Parliament.

So, what does this all tell us? Mainly that the future Implementing Rules and associated support material will have a direct input, but not a majority vote, from the experts representing 'industry' i.e. the owners and pilots as well as GA support organisations. Secondly, EASA is bringing some fresh thinking to this whole contenious area of over-regulation. They recognise officially that the regulations have to be proportional to the risks, and in that we are mainly talking of risks to uninvolved third parties rather than pilots themselves (if operating non-commerically). That risk, historically, has been very low - with the UK CAA this last year in the Regulatory Review we put together a comprehensive overview of fatal accidents and identified those involving such third parties - a very small number indeed over 20 years. Thirdly, I believe, at this stage, there is a genuine desire on the part of EASA to find a more appropriate solution to the IR problem because they recognise that having an IR mitigates risk more than not having one, put quite simply. Lastly, the draft Implemeting Rules and thereby any proposal for a fresh look at Instrument Ratings for light aviation, will be subjected to public consultation by EASA before the final drafts go to the Commission for approval. So you will get a chance to inut your views.

Hope this is helpful

[Keef]

David, many thanks for that, and for the vast amount of work that lies behind it.

It makes me a lot more hopeful for a sensible set of aviation rules in the future, although the process where experts are excluded from the ultimate decision making reminds me of my own dealings with the EU in a different activity.

[IO540]

Very interesting David, thank you for the update.

[dublinpilot]

Thank you David.

It's great to get some info regarding this 'from the horses mouth' so to speak.

Maybe there is some light on the horizon for GA in Europe.

dp

[IO540]

I don't doubt that "VFR GA" has a secure future. It seems to be accepted that basic flying has a place in society, alongside all the other leisure activities.

Farm strip flying will always be safe, and beyond that is depends on what happens to all the airfields which currently accept GA at reasonable prices.

It is the IFR GA side of things which is uncertain. The N-reg scene is 99%about IFR - whether it is a little SEP or a business jet.

[ant1]

Hi

Can any of you point me to the F.A.R. that says it is possible to get an authorization to fly an N-registered aircraft outside the U.S. with a foreign licence ?

Thanks

[mm_flynn]

Hi
Can any of you point me to the F.A.R. that says it is possible to get an authorization to fly an N-registered aircraft outside the U.S. with a foreign licence ?
Thanks

Sec. 61.3

Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used; and

So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.

[norilsk]

I always understood that you had to have 2 out of three from
1, Licence
2, A/C Reg
3, Airspace

Therefore if UK licence holder could fly N reg in UK FIR But not N reg in French FIR. But Could Fly G reg in US. Hope That makes sense!

[mm_flynn]

The "2 out of three rule" is an unhelpful approximation which leads to incorrect conclusions. For instance FAA in G-reg flying in France is OK (but doesn't fit with 2 from 3), UK-PPL in N-reg flying in USA not OK (but does fit 2 from 3).

[IO540]

The 2 out of 3 rule should be laid to rest, along with fifty other urban myths that generate a lot of internet bandwidth :)

There are 3 things

a) country of aircraft reg
b) country of License issue (or Rating issue)
c) country of airspace

If a) and b) match then you have worldwide privileges, noncommercial, VFR and (if you have a matching IR) IFR also.

This is what drives the FAA PPL/IR + N-reg scene. One could do it equally with a Mongolian PPL/IR and a Mongolian reg plane, etc, but the FAA regime is the choice one because they run most of the known universe.

So we have a+b = OK. This is per ICAO and is the cornerstone of international aviation.

The other two possibilities i.e.

a+c
b+c

work sometimes but not through any treaty obligation. When they happen to work, it is through local concessions (or oversights) only. There are a few examples, the best known one is the UK CAA one:

Any ICAO PPL + G-reg is OK worldwide but any IFR privilege is OCAS only.

Some others are quite interesting but I won't post them because I don't have references, and they could become ever so useful one day.

I also don't think this stuff is necessarily in the respective national AIP, either.

[Yankee]

Sec. 61.3
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.

Quoting the above FAR I put the following question to the FAA Support Services on their web site on 1/2/2005. UK date.

“FAR 61.3.2 Indicates that a “N” reg aircraft can be flown in a foreign country if the pilot holds a current pilot's licence issued by the country in which the aircraft is flown. Does that pilot’s licence have to be an ICAO recognised licence or can it be a national licence issued by that country which covers the aircraft type being flow”

And received a reply.

“This is an autoresponse message. We have received your support request and will be responding soon”

Having not heard anything by June I responded again with.

“I am still awaiting a response to this question. Put simply.
i.e, If I fly a "N" reg. aircraft solely within UK airspace, on a National Licence licence issued by that country, to fly that aircraft type, does the FAA have any objections.”

To which their FAA (Expert), their quote not mine, replied.

“I am forwarding your question on to our international division. They will send me the answer and I will forwarded it on to you. You should receive the answer by early next week.”

A further follow up with them in Nov. resulted in a final closing response of.

“We recommend that you contact one of our Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO). These offices are staffed to assist with airmen certification, aircraft operations, airworthiness issues, and enforcement and investigations.”

Which in other words meant we don’t want to be put on the spot here, lets elbow it somewhere to close this.

I can’t say that I’m surprised by their response but it was worth asking the question in case I got a positive reply. Being only too grateful to be able to still fly with a NPPL I didn’t want to rock the boat too much, but if someone really wanted to push this issue it would be interesting to see what the experts would say. At the end of the day the CAA say I am qualified to fly a certain type of aircraft under certain flying conditions in UK airspace and it would seem from the FAR’s that the FAA are happy for me to fly one of their same type “N” reg aircraft in the UK if I have a licence issued by that country, which I have, where’s the problem. Don’t tell me “I think I’ve already answered my own question”.

Yankee

[IO540]

Unless the word "license" is defined as e.g. an ICAO license elsewhere, then I agree with you Yankee that you can fly an N-reg on an NPPL in UK airspace.

(Note that UK airspace in this context doesn't include the Channel Islands, and suprisingly it doesn't include the IOM which has its own rules).

I got a similar sort of reply from the FAA a while ago, confirming that the UK IMC Rating is valid in an N-reg. The CAA also said it's up to the FAA.

We can all dissect these replies, but it doesn't really matter because it's pretty obvious that if anybody went after you for an alleged breach, such an email would be a pretty good defence.

[ant1]

Thanks mm_flynn

the issue here is whether 61.3 was written before JAA was set up and if the wording "pilot license issued by the country" can consequently be interpreted as a JAA license is required in JAA countries.

Besides FAA authorization, is an authorization from the local authorities also required ?

Sec. 61.3
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--
(1) ...However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used; and
So a UK licence holder can fly an N-reg in the UK, but not in other countries.

[mm_flynn]

ant1,

My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.

As to the second part of your question, it will be down to the local country's laws as to any restrictions placed on their pilot's operating other nation's aircraft in their airspace. In general though if you are going to operate N-reg - get an FAA license.

[IO540]

Besides FAA authorization, is an authorization from the local authorities also required ?

Unless the local airspace owner specifically prohibits something (which is very rare(++)) then the privileges are entirely down to the aircraft registry and the pilot's privileges.

This is why nobody in Europe can stop an N-reg plane flown by an FAA PPL/IR holder, IFR in the Class A airways. They would love to stop it (to support their gold plated JAA crap) but they can't.

For example they also can't (currently) stop single pilot jet operations - under FAA you don't generally need a type rating for under 5700kg and you can fly an N-reg Citation in the airways on an FAA PPL/IR. The Euro CAAs really hate this, and tell everybody so quite openly, but they can't stop it without a lot of potential repercussions.

I also don't believe one can read the FARs differently according to JAR or no-JAR. One has to read them exactly as they are written. So if you have

However, when the aircraft is operated within a foreign country, a current pilot license issued by the country in which the aircraft is operated may be used

then that means exactly what it says. If Gary Glitter buys an island, with its own sovereign airspace (very hard to do these days) then he can issue you with a license (handwritten on the back of a fag packet) to fly in his airspace, and that license would satisfy the above FAA requirement for an N-reg.

Incidentally, is an NPPL for G-reg only, or doesn't it say? That's the first thing I would check.

My limited understanding of JAA licensing is that they aren't Eurolicenses (in the sense an FAA licence is a Federal licence valid in all States of America) but a set of 'harmonised' licences issued by individual States (hence the CAA's involvement in UK pilot's JAA licences), so I suspect the interpretation that is correct would be a UK issue JAA licence is ok for UK airspace in an N-reg but not for French Airspace. However, I will need to defer to EuroLawyers who will no doubt provide a more substantive answer.

I don't think the above would be applicable since the FARs use the word "country" and there is no way that UK and France could be regarded as one country.

(++) the common exception to this is the equipment carriage requirements. If the UK CAA mandates an ADF for IFR in CAS, then every plane has to have an ADF in this airspace in the UK, regardless of state of registry. But requirements for additional equipment carriage are a world away from prohibiting certain privileges granted by the registry State. There are I believe some other exceptions connected with max pilot age in jet transports but I know nothing about this.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Yankee,

The FARs are written for FAA land and cover that and common other scenarios.

They do not aim to and will not cover every other possible licence/regulation quirck thought up by people in other countries.

That is why the FAA folks will not be drawn in on the issue whether an NPPL is enough to fly an Nreg in the UK or whether and IMC rating is enough to fly a similar plane in UK airspace.

[ant1]

Practically speaking the "Yanks" are not in France to ramp-check if the Pilot is flying the N-reg aircraft with a UK issued JAA license. I wonder BTW what the French would have to say.

For instance, I know people in Spain that have gotten written permission from the local CAA to fly their newly imported N-regd aircraft with their local/JAA ticket while the change of registry process is done :confused:. This is confusing since the local regs don't put any limitation on the registry of the aircraft that can be flown with that country's licence.
On the other hand the local regs have a provision to allow the authorities to deny their citizens the ability to fly foreign registered aircraft with a foreign ticket. According to that rule Spain has the right to deny its citizens the ability the fly N-regd aircraft with an FAA licence (I don't think it's being enforced).

But in the end it all comes down to how all this is enforced. Continuing with the Spanish example, I am pretty sure that when flying a GA aircraft, as long as you produce a licence to the Police (they are the ones asking for paperwork upon arrival) be it JAA or FAA you won't be bothered since I believe they have no clue about these nuances (I hope they don't read this ;)).
I would like to hear what other JAA countries may have to say about flying N-regd with a non local JAA licence and what policy they use to enforce their point of view (who do the ramp checks, do they have a clue, etc.)

BTW: I have an FAA licence but I am trying to set an aircraft partnership and prospective partners don't.

[mm_flynn]

Practically speaking the "Yanks" are not in France to ramp-check if the Pilot is flying the N-reg aircraft with a UK issued JAA license. I wonder BTW what the French would have to say.

The French have a guide pack that they use when they go over your N-Reg paperwork (and they seem to enjoy doing it!) and they fret if the bits of paper don't match what they are expecting.


For instance, I know people in Spain that have gotten written permission from the local CAA to fly their newly imported N-regd aircraft with their local/JAA ticket while the change of registry process is done :confused:. This is confusing since the local regs don't put any limitation on the registry of the aircraft that can be flown with that country's licence. - Which is exactly in line with the FAR's.


On the other hand the local regs have a provision to allow the authorities to deny their citizens the ability to fly foreign registered aircraft with a foreign ticket.
which is why it is dangerous even for one minute think about the 2 from 3 urban myth. You need to understand the laws that apply and in this case it appears there may be a local aviation law for citizens of Spain to be restricted in the type of aviation activity they do


But in the end it all comes down to how all this is enforced. ...
I would like to hear what other JAA countries may have to say about flying N-regd with a non local JAA licence and what policy they use to enforce their point of view (who do the ramp checks, do they have a clue, etc.)


As a general rule, I would say all of the JAA aviation authorities have the hump about the N-reg scene and although there is not a lot they can do about it, the one thing the can do is make darn sure your playing exactly by the rules. Think DfT demand for copies of insurance, reg, maintenance release to approve having a paid flight instructor do a check ride. They don't do any of that stuff for their own aircraft or a JAA aircraft! And certainly in the UK there have been some recent prosecutions of people going over the line.

Finally, much as no one will ever notice or care of you fly your G-reg to France on an NPPL - if you crash you have violated a series of aviation laws which provide great ammunition for injured parties to litigate and for your insurance to walk away. (In the real case were just this happened, I don't know the actual result from the insurance companies perspective)

[IO540]

Practically speaking the "Yanks" are not in France to ramp-check if the Pilot is flying the N-reg aircraft with a UK issued JAA license
True, but the French are in France and love doing exactly that :)

For instance, I know people in Spain that have gotten written permission from the local CAA to fly their newly imported N-regd aircraft with their local/JAA ticket

This is weird; no such permission should be needed. The FARs cover this.

On the other hand the local regs have a provision to allow the authorities to deny their citizens the ability to fly foreign registered aircraft with a foreign ticket. According to that rule Spain has the right to deny its citizens the ability the fly N-regd aircraft with an FAA licence (I don't think it's being enforced).

Can you supply a reference to this, and if necessary a translation into English? It would mean that a Spanish citizen could not become a pilot for a foreign airline, for example.

I gather France has a similar thing (French citizens are banned) but it applies to IFR privileges with a non-JAA IR, or something similar.

since I believe they have no clue about these nuances

Pilots who got turned over in France in recent years have reported that the Frogs were issues with briefing packs showing specimen U.S. licenses and specifically where to check for the IFR privileges. It's not exactly obvious on the credit-card FAA thingy.

I would like to hear what other JAA countries may have to say about flying N-regd with a non local JAA licence and what policy they use to enforce their point of view (who do the ramp checks, do they have a clue, etc.)

It would be interesting to see contributions on this. However, the numbers are probably small, and if anything, transitional. Going N-reg is a big hassle and people won't do it unless for a very good reason. The maintenance saving is approximately zero and the main driver is usually the FAA IR, which needs an FAA PPL.

BTW: I have an FAA licence but I am trying to set an aircraft partnership and prospective partners don't

I was involved in something like that too. One pilot did his FAA PPL eventually and the others never bothered, not even a piggyback. The thing I failed to realise is that most FAA licensed pilots (who have any meaningful experience and currency) are already owners...

[ant1]

On the other hand the local regs have a provision to allow the authorities to deny their citizens the ability to fly foreign registered aircraft with a foreign ticket. According to that rule Spain has the right to deny its citizens the ability the fly N-regd aircraft with an FAA licence (I don't think it's being enforced).
Can you supply a reference to this, and if necessary a translation into English? It would mean that a Spanish citizen could not become a pilot for a foreign airline, for example.


First of all, "foreign licence" surely would not apply to a non Spanish JAA ticket. I also forgot to mention that Spain has the right to deny its citizens the ability the fly N-regd aircraft with an FAA licence within Spanish airspace
As I said I don't think this is being enforced, specially in the field of airline operations. Again it all boils down to how this is enforced and I would say in Spain foreign airline crews don't get bothered with licence checks but I stand to be corrected.

I will try to find the reference since It's been a while since I came across this reg.

According to your answers I understand that the French would not like to see us landing an N-regd in French soil with a non French JAA licence .

Kind of weird indeed taking in account that changing the country of issue of a JAA licence usually involves only a bureaucratic act.

Isn't this some kind of discrimination between harmonised (having equal privileges) JAA licences?

[mm_flynn]

According to your answers I understand that the French would not like to see us landing an N-regd in French soil with a non French JAA licence .
Kind of weird indeed taking in account that changing the country of issue of a JAA licence usually involves only a bureaucratic act.
Isn't this some kind of discrimination between harmonised (having equal privileges) JAA licences?

Not really, it is the application of a very clear set of international principles. The day the Federal Republic of Europe writes and enforces the European aviation laws, has one regulator, and issues licences from one place you might have a case for arguing that a European license is issued by a 'State'. Until that is true it is against US law to operate an N-reg with a license other than FAA or the state where you are operating the aircraft. There is absolutely no reason why any country should say 'even though the FAA says you can't - it OK by us'. If on some particular detail the local country says it is ok, then count your blessings and hope the FAA never tries to undertake an enforcement action against your trustee.


PS - As far as I am aware there are still anomalies in the 'harmonised' licences. (like UK issue doesn't let you fly out of sight of ground where French does) If these were ever eliminated we wouldn't have anything to use Pprune for:rolleyes:

[IO540]

According to your answers I understand that the French would not like to see us landing an N-regd in French soil with a non French JAA licence

Yes, that would contravene the FARs, as already referenced. The FAA could go after the pilot for that, never mind the locals.

[ant1]

I will submit the issue to the FAA and will keep you informed if they come back with an answer.

[David Roberts]

I have not read through the whole of this thread since I last contributed, so please forgive me if what I say below is already covered or understood by readers.

The JAA rules including licences were not embodied into EU law. Therefore states could pick and choose what to adopt and how to adopt, if at all, the JAA ‘rules’. It was optional. This is one of the main reasons why the EU Commission, Council of Ministers and EU Parliament decided in 2002 to start the process of creating a EU legal framework for civil aviation (Regulation 1592/2002). This established EASA as the technical agency to draft the new regulations and rules etc for approval by the aforesaid institutions. The purpose is to have legally binding (on EU Member States) regulations and rules. No option but to comply and implement a standardised framework. The airworthiness regulation and rules are already in place (though the maintenance rules for light aircraft used non commercially – Part M – is still under review, because of our protestations in 2005, ahead of the deferred implementation date of 28 Sept 2008). The Regulation and associated rules for operations and licensing are in the later stages of development now (see my previous posting).

The non-legally binding basis of JAA may explain why, as regards FAA licences, N registered aircraft, EU member states’ airspace and access etc there are varying ‘local’ requirements. EASA is intent on sorting that out but as one can imagine, it is a bit of a minefield, and EASA has been under-resourced and behind the drag curve as a consequence. As well as fighting off attacks from NAAs.

Secondly, the latest draft of the change to Regulation 1592/2002 extends EASA’s ‘competence’ (as it called – they really mean ‘scope’) to FRA in Europe. I quote the latest draft of the change to the Regulation, Article 4, Basic Principles and Applicability, clause 1 c – “Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:

….. registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or

The bit in italics is what has been added in the draft since the Basic Regulation came into force in 2003.

It means that FRAs used in the EU and operated by an EU resident operator (which is defined to include persons and not just airline companies) will come under the legal jurisdiction of the EU as regards all aspects – airworthiness, pilot licensing, operations etc etc. The whole situation also has to be co-ordinated with ICAO rules to make it work in the EU.

So, look to EASA to influence the future shape of what you do in the air over the EU.

Happy flying.

[ant1]

Please translate.

Do you foresee any problems in the future for N-reg aircraft staying in Europe ?

[IO540]

I've never come across anybody who can suggest how the EASA "you will have to maintain your nasty foreign reg plane to EASA standards" proposal is going to work, unless EASA first accepts FAA certification lock stock and barrel.

Let's say that under some future EASA maintenance regime (I couldn't understand the detail of the presentation on this very subject at the recent CAA seminar, and got the impression that almost nobody else did either) I have to have 50hr checks done by some suitably approved UK company.

Presumably such a company will have to give me a signoff of some sort (for which they will charge nicely, together with a nice charge for the 50hr check).

How can they give me a signoff when my plane contains some equipment which has no EASA certification? It's outside this company's scope. In fact the whole airframe might not be EASA certified.

Now shift this up to a £20M bizjet :ugh:

AIUI, you can't meaningfully apply EASA maintenance requirements to an aircraft unless it is wholly EASA certified in the first place.

I suppose the said firm could ignore non-EASA stuff and just apply EASA ADs to the aircraft; this would be extra work (and cost) since an N-reg needs to comply only with FAA ADs. But there are very few EASA ADs which are not also FAA ADs.

If EASA were to force the ripping out of all non EASA certified equipment then that is an N-reg eviction from Europe in all but name, and we are back to the same old political hot potato which the DfT dropped, which the French dropped even earlier, and which EASA isn't going to find any easier if they want to avoid top corporate level protests, not to mention the fact they like to flog some Airbuses in the USA.....etc etc etc.

To create the uniform regime they talk about, EASA will have to accept FAA certification, and they will have to accept FAA FCL (licenses/ratings, on some swapping basis for JAA IRs - this is extremely controversial among the European elite). Then the whole issue will become moot and the N-reg scene will gradually dry up anyway.

Other than the ADs and such, there is very little difference between Private G-reg maintenance and Part 91 N-reg maintenance. But all this will change under EASA over the next few years anyway, which is also the sort of timescale which will be involved in getting any kind of Euro-wide agreement on accepting the FAA stuff....

I have put this stuff to people far more informed than myself and none of them understand it either.

One crude possibility is that EASA will force you to send your proof of the FAA Annual (and the IA signoff) to some office, with a cheque for £500 or whatever; a blatent revenue raising scheme which can then be used to buy off an agreement (from the NAA that has dug its heels in) on something else.

So, IMHO, there is no point in worrying about it. There is always a cloud on the horizon in this business. Your local airfield is probably going to close (due to insufficient sales of avgas and chocolate cakes) before EASA get around to tackling hot potatoes which everybody else before them has dropped.

Get your FAA IR and enjoy your flying! We probably have a 3-5 year horizon which is the best anybody is going to get in aviation.

[ant1]

IO-540,

On the other hand the local regs have a provision to allow the authorities to deny their citizens the ability to fly foreign registered aircraft with a foreign ticket. According to that rule Spain has the right to deny its citizens the ability the fly N-regd aircraft with an FAA licence (I don't think it's being enforced).

Can you supply a reference to this, and if necessary a translation into English? It would mean that a Spanish citizen could not become a pilot for a foreign airline, for example.


It is in fact laid out in the Chicago Convention:

I just came across the rule in post #44 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123717&page=3) of this thread in which you participated

My memory ain't what is used to be :{

[IO540]

Ant1

You are right, my memory ain't wot it used to be, either :)

The next question is where would such a prohibition be documented? Would it be in the country's AIP, and/or would it be published as a difference to ICAO in one of its annexes?

I wonder how many countries actually do this. They would have to give exemptions to people wishing to work for a U.S. (or any other N-reg) operator, or the said pilots would have to take a foreign citizenship.

[mm_flynn]

Ant1


I wonder how many countries actually do this. They would have to give exemptions to people wishing to work for a U.S. (or any other N-reg) operator, or the said pilots would have to take a foreign citizenship.

Or simply hold two appropriate licences - One for the aircraft registration and one for their home country. Or not fly in your home country's airspace - which for a Spanish Citizen with an FAA ATPL flying for SouthWestern wouldn't be a big deal. I think it is only really a problem for a Spanish Citizen, living in Spain, wishing to fly an N-reg.

[ant1]

I have not seen anything published in Spain's AIP so far. As I've said before, I am pretty sure it is not being enforced.

Something simlar happens with the retirement age rule in France. Airlines have to make sure they don't schedule "older" Pilots to fly in French airspace.

IO-540, when owning an N-reg through a trust do you have to seek insurance with a US based insurance company or a local one ?

Thanks

[IO540]

Ant1 - Normal UK insurance. They are completely unconcerned about the aircraft being in a trust. You incidentally save the 5% IPT.

mm-flynn - you are right. If the UK did this, one could carry on by holding a plain UK/JAA PPL which would cover flying an N-reg in the UK (the FARs specifically allow any license to be used in the airpsace of the issuing country). One would need a JAA IR for full instrument privileges in UK airspace but one can do that adequately with the IMC Rating, or one can just fly UK's informal VFR :) Going abroad, one would do a VFR-IFR flight plan.

The other way is to obtain some foreign passport and tear up your UK one. I don't see how this affects how one lives in the UK in any practical way. Anybody born abroad (which includes me) could do this in an instant.

I can't really see the UK CAA doing this; it would be pretty pointless.