View Full Version : Updated EASA proposals on non-EU IRs
What do the business jet people here think of this stuff (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/413655-updated-easa-proposals-non-eu-irs.html)?
Trim Stab
3rd Jun 2010, 18:42
I don't think the restrictions are aimed at penalising FAA professional pilots who operate in Europe. They are aimed at ensuring that the increasing number of wealthy JAR PPLs who are operating VLJs (often as single-pilot) are able to fly safely in upper airspace.
I think you need to read that thread again.
If you are flying a jet on an FAA CPL/IR, and are EU based, you will be grounded until you get a JAA CPL/IR etc.
This is 14 exams, plus flight training, plus the JAA flight tests. Plus type ratings.
BizJetJock
4th Jun 2010, 12:05
Bo11ocks.:ugh:
If you are flying an N, VP/Q or M reg aircraft on an FAA licence nothing changes because EASA have no jurisdiction. All these proposals refer to flying EASA registered a/c, and there are very few people doing that on a validation.
This is actually the same as the JAR rules, where a validation issued without passing all the exams is only valid on aircraft from that state, not JAA wide.
The problem here is that EASA spend millions of euros producing these documents, but almost nobody is paid to decipher them.
They are actually going after N-reg operators, EU resident.
ICAO does permit any member state to ban its citizens from flying on foreign licenses within its airspace.
cldrvr
4th Jun 2010, 20:40
IO540, you may want to read that again because it does not say that.
IO540,
You need to understand what validating a licence is and when you need to validate or want to validate a licence.
Flying an N registered aircraft in Europe with an FAA licence does not require any form of validation.
If you want to fly a UK registered aircraft with a US licence then you need to obtain a validation. Currently the UK gives automatic validation for PPL level activities not involving flight instruction or IFR flight in controlled airspace.
These EASA proposals for validations are no big change from what currently applies and to be honest will not be very difficult to comply with except the end of automatic validations that are never ending.
So why are you complaining about something that will have no effect on you flying your US resistered aircraft with a US licence?
If you hold an FAA Certificate with the appropriate type ratings then there is nothing to stop you from flying an N registered jet all over Europe. Furthermore if you obtain a validation from Outer Mongolia, there is nothing stopping you from flying a jet registered there all over Europe.
This Validation is about wanting to fly European registered aircraft with something other than a European licence.
So what you should be moaning about is that Tommy can no longer go to some place in the USA and just about scrape an FAA ppl before purchasing a G registered aircraft and causing mayhem in France. IS that a bad thing?? ;)
you may want to read that again because it does not say that.OK I accept that the bit I quoted does not say that. But much better minds than mine have gone through the entire document(s) and are certain that it does apply to foreign regs (called "third country aircraft" in the EASA documents). There is a bit in there somewhere which I recall reading, concerning where the operator is based, and if in the EU then the regs do apply. Let me see if I can dig out the page #.
and there are very few people doing that on a validation.
I agree. Probably more in the UK (which allows a G-reg to be flown VFR on any ICAO PPL) but it's not a real issue because PPL conversion is quite easy. And you can get a foreign CPL validated locally in most places if you have a relationship with a local commercial operator.
The concern stems from the wording of EC Regulation 216/2008 (better known as the "Basic Regulation"). This is wide-ranging legislation that essentially governs the regulation of all civil aviation in the EU. Amongst other things, it establishes EASA. It is long and tedious. Focussing solely on pilot licensing aspects:
1. By Article 2 paragraph 1(c) the regulation applies to aircraft "registered in a third country and used ... into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community". In other words if I am an operator established within the EU then my aircraft has to comply with the regs, no matter what its flag of registration. "Operator" is defined as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft" - circular perhaps, but wide.
2. By Article 2 paragraph 2, "personnel involved in the operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1 ...(c) ... shall comply with this Regulation". In other words, if I fly an aircraft whose operator is established within the EU then I have to comply with the regs too.
3. Just in case that wasn't enough, Article 2 paragraph 3 provides that "Operations of aircraft referred to in paragraph 1... (c) ... shall comply with this Regulation".
4. Taken together, the upshot of the above provisions is that one can't opt out of EASA merely on the basis that one has N-reg planes and currently flies around under the privileges of FAA licences; to opt out one would need an aircraft whose operator resided outside the EU. It may be possible to set up some structure whereby the plane is operated by a non-EU resident...
5. Assuming that one's aircraft is operated by an EU-based operator (and one is therefore subject to the Basic Regulation), one needs to be licensed to fly in accordance with Article 7. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 states that "Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) [1(c) includes EU-operated N-reg planes] ... shall comply with the relevant 'essential requirements' laid down in Annex III". Annex III is high-level stuff; what it means in practice an how it relates to the training and qualification route that FAA licence holders have gone down remains to be seen. Of more immediate practical concern is Article 7 paragraph 2: "except when under training, a person may only act as pilot if he or she holds a licence and a medical certificate appropriate to the operation to be performed". It is tolerably clear from the context that "licence" and "medical certificate" mean EASA licence and EASA medical certificate and not (for example) an FAA one.
6. But not all the news is bad. Article 7 paragraph 2 also stipulates that the requirements for licence and medical certificate issuance "may be satisfied by the acceptance of licences and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of a third country as far as pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(c) are concerned". Note that it does NOT say: "... may be satisfied by licences and medical certificates issued by ..."; the word "acceptance" is key. EASA could decide to accept FAA licences. But will it? EASA have made it clear that they will accept FAA licenses only via a mutual license acceptance treaty with the FAA. The FAA has a simple system for issuing 61.75 validations, but EASA pretends this does not exist; a treaty is their only acceptable means of doing this. And I don't think the FAA will go along with a treaty; firstly Europe is hardly significant in the global aviation picture, and secondly there is the present U.S. domestic security climate.
7. Article 12 paragraph 1, provides that "By way of derogation from the provision of this Regulation and its implementing rules, the Agency or the aviation authorities in the Member State may issue certificates on the basis of certificates issued by aeronautical authorities of a third country, as provided for in recognition agreements between the Community and that third country". This does not relate only to 4(1)(c) aircraft but more generally; i.e. this offers the possibility of mutual validation of licences. Whether it helps EU-based FAA licence holders depends on what (if any) recognition agreements are reached. But in principle, at least, it provides another route for existing privileges to remain.
We - EU residents - probably cannot avoid being covered by the Basic Regulation and therefore cannot avoid being EASA regulated. What that means in practice depends on what EASA choose to do. At one extreme we will have to rip up our licences and train all over again; at the other extreme, all FAA licences will be accepted.
Currently, in the EU, one can convert an ICAO IR to a JAA IR using the "15 hour conversion route" which means sitting all 7 (or 14 for a CPL/IR) exams and doing 15hrs of training (more if converting a CPL) and the JAA IR checkride. This leads to a pragmatic wait-and-see approach, with a key issue being the timing of any implementation: will we be able to judge what EASA is going to do before there is any chance of them killing off the current conversion route. If they killed off the conversion route (and that is indeed their current proposal) then an IR conversion would mean 50/55 (SE/ME) hours of training. The implementation date is somewhere in 2012 but may well slip.
CJ Driver
12th Jun 2010, 17:20
IO540 - I also think you are reading too much into this. The text you quote is NOT about validation and conversion of licences; it all hinges on whether EASA considers a licence to be "acceptable". I interpret that to mean that EASA is reserving the right to claim that, for example, a licence from darkest nowhere-land is not acceptable. If you simply substitute "USA" for all the legal-speak "third country" verbiage, you end up with (paraphrasing a bit):
"The requirement for a licence may be satisfied by the acceptance of a licence issued by the USA for pilots involved in the operation of a US registered aircraft".
At which point, it looks like the current status quo.
jez d
14th Jun 2010, 12:23
I've not had time to look into the proposals for a while but last I heard there were two key stumbling blocks that could prevent an EU commercial outfit or EU national private pilot from operating third-country aircraft under third-country licences in EU airspace.
First was the gotcha that third-country aircraft cannot be resident in the EU for more than three months at a time. This allows third-country airlines, commercial operators and private pilots to visit, but prevents EU residents from operating under anything other than EASA licences in EASA registered aircraft unless they intend to depart the EU every three months.
Second, in order for EASA to accept third country licences for EU residents, a bi-lateral agreement must be reached between EASA and the country in question, which in the case of an EASA/FAA bi-lateral is as likely as EASA winning an award for 'light-touch regulator of the year'.
I believe a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) dealing specifically with third-country aircraft and licence privileges is being published later this year.
Caveat - all the above could have moved on since I last caught up with the mysterious goings on at EASA HQ, but I suspect the last thing EASA wants to see are EU residents flouting EASA regulations by opting to operate under a different Authority's banner in their airspace.
Regards, jez
10540
EASA have had their knuckles rapped on numerous occasions for ridiculous suggestions and attempted rulemaking.
Trying to ban FAA in Europe has been tried and failed for years.
EASA employees can write what they want to justify their employment but making it legal and acceptable through the numerous court systems and rights which luckely we do have in Europe is another matter!!!
Every time it has failed and there is nothing to indicate that this wouldnt too?
Yet another few weeks work delegated to the EASA bins I guess! and thats where every rule put there for protectionism and territorialism which has NO basis in safety should go!
Pace