Information on EASA FCL?

[Contacttower]

I read and duly commented on the EASA FCL NPA when it was out for consultation last year, with particular interest in the EASA instrument rating and proposed FAA to EASA conversion proposals. I understand that according to schedule EASA FCL should become law in April 2012 but was wondering what information about progress between the close of consultation last year and implementation in 2012 will be available in the mean time?

I note the EASA website appears to be rather difficult to navigate and the only info I could find was the archived NPA that I have already read.

[BillieBob]

EASA's responses to 'stakeholder' comments are here (http://easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/comment-response-documents-CRDs-and-review-groups.php) and are probably the last we will hear on Part FCL until it becomes law. The Part Med NPA comment period is now over and the next event is EASA's responses to the comments on the NPAs of Parts OR and AR, due in September.

There are recurring rumours that implementation will be delayed beyond April 2012 but it is more likely that EASA will force things through on time to avoid losing face - again. There is a general underestimation of the level of blind arrogance that prevails among the bureaucrats in Cologne, who are actively lobbying the EC to avoid having to put future NPAs out to comment as it is seen as a complete waste of time and resources.

[David Roberts]

Just returned from a day in Cologne...

I have it on good authority that the EASA 'Opinion' on FCL (excluding medical aspects) will be published 25th or 26th August on the EASA website. The Opinion is the final 'technical' stage as this Opinion goes to the EU Commission for consideration by the Member States' representatives (i.e. part of the political agreement process, which may extend to the Parliament).

In terms of implementation the 'cover regulation' draft in the CRD published in April indicated that for private pilots' licences (ICAO compliant and the sub ICAO LAPL) member states will have the option under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation (216) to phase implementation over a period of up to two or three years (i.e. to 8 April 2015, depending on which licence) but this has to be agreed at Commission level. One the reasons is that Members States' NAAs (UK CAA in our case) have to prepare conversion reports for various national licences, other than the JAR PPL (A) and (H) which will convert to EU licences automatically. This will take time, and the CAA could not start this work until the text of the new EU FCL implementating rules has stabilised.

After this Opinion, the medical part, for which responses to the CRD closed 24th August, will need to be concluded at the techncial level this autumn, and later the work of FCL.008 group will have to have an NPA published for consultation. FCL.008 deals with the proposed new IR in particular.

The CRD on Parts OR and AR (i.e. requirements for training organisations) are indeed planned for publication in September (with a workshop Oct 20-21), but OPS is still on the slow burner.

[IO540]

David - any indication of when EASA proposes to ban the use of foreign licenses (e.g. a pilot flying an N-reg on an FAA license) in EU airspace?

[Justiciar]

any indication of when EASA proposes to ban the use of foreign licenses

Did you mean when, as opposed to if :(

What will be the IR conversion route under the new regulations - will it be harder than currently?

[IO540]

No IR conversion routes have been published.

So if a 20,000hr US ATP wants an EASA IR, he will have to sit all the exams and fly the full course.

The present "15hr" IR conversion route is not included in the proposal.

No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

I was told by a very senior EASA official that they are playing this hardball game to drag the FAA to the table, to sign a bilateral license recognition treaty. IMHO this is grossly misguided, because the FAA already practically gives away its licenses to any foreigner wanting to fly an N-reg in its airspace, and thus sees no reason to sign a treaty to allow the use of foreign licenses in its airspace.

I predict a humiliating climbdown by EASA, at the last minute of course. But we may get some legal c0ckup...

[Contacttower]

No IR conversion routes have been published.Really? I think if you turn to page 162/3 of the FCL NPA (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/NPA/NPA%202008-17b.pdf) it outlines the proposals for the conversion of foreign licences. The table has a specific entry for PPL/IR (A).

The same table then reappears in the relevant Comment Response Document (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/CRD%20b.1%20-%20Cover%20Regulation%20+%20Annexes.pdf) (thank you to the poster that pointed me to these) largely unchanged.

[IO540]

Sure - I know about the page 159-162 stuff. But I think you will find this has been dissected here and elsewhere previously and is not what it seems, once one reads all the referenced documents.

Can you work out what exactly e.g. an FAA PPL/IR needs to do to fly an N-reg in the EU?

I accept that you can call it a "conversion route" but it is not an easy one.

[Contacttower]

But I think you will find this has been dissected here and elsewhere previously and is not what it seems, once one reads all the referenced documents.Was it discussed in a thread on here? I must have missed that. The NPA and CRD don't give much detail I admit but where in all the EASA publications does it lead one to believe that it's not what it seems?

I agree from the information available at the moment it is not clear exactly what an FAA IR has to do to fly N reg in the EU, but it would appear from a FCL point of view they have given thought to a conversion process. Whether or not one can carry on with one's FAA IR surely rests on whether N reg will still be allowed to be based in the EU; EASAs thoughts on this seem less clear...

Sorry IO540 I've just found the threads you refer to, I'll give them a read...:)

[IO540]

Whether or not one can carry on with one's FAA IR surely rests on whether N reg will still be allowed to be based in the EU; EASAs thoughts on this seem less clear...That one at least appears easier to answer - which is Yes, provided it is a piston SE or ME, or a SE turboprop. ME TPs and jets are variously screwed; they will be able to remain long-term parked here provided an EASA MO gets variously involved in their maintenance.

Here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/424042-easa-maintenance-proposals-n-reg-etc.html)

Regarding the 2008 FCL proposal, I would always defer to better brains than mine to work out the full interactions of the different bits. Very few bright people I know can work it out.

Many very bright people are absolutely convinced those provisions refer only to license conversions which is a completely different thing (and only relevant to people who want to fly EU-reg planes, typically IFR, but have only an ICAO non-JAA IR). And sure enough that is how it reads, superficially... this may have been intended by EASA because it is not in their interest to make such an aggressive measure too obvious too early on in the process.

[Contacttower]

Many very bright people are absolutely convinced those provisions refer only to license conversions which is a completely different thing (and only relevant to people who want to fly EU-reg planes, typically IFR, but have only an ICAO non-JAA IR). And sure enough that is how it reads, superficially... this may have been intended by EASA because it is not in their interest to make such an aggressive measure too obvious too early on in the process.Yes having read it again I see what you mean, the tables in the NPA and CRD actually seems to refer to just the conversion of licences issued in the past by EU member states to EASA licences, not non-EU member licences. Leaving as you say a bit of gap in the regs if one wants to go for anything other than the one year validation. The document does cover the conversion of foreign licences, on the last page, but makes not specific mention of IRs.

Watch this space I guess...:confused:

The prospect of a bilateral licence agreement sounds interesting though.

[Justiciar]

I am finding it very difficult to get my head around the legal aspects of this. What EASA seem to be saying is that if you are a resident of an EU state you will not be legally able to fly say an N reg aircraft based in the EU without an EU licence. That seems to fly in the face of the ICAO conventions and the very basic world wide principle that if the state of registry of the aircraft and the state of issue of the licence match then you are legal. What then happens if the FAA licence lapses (either by expiry or by failure to have a BFR). The pilot is then entitled to fly an N reg aircraft on say an EASA licence within the EU?

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident? How exactly that will be enforced is anyone's guess as a simple ramp check is unlikley to throw up any illegality.

This does not just relate to N reg. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU! Nor is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. What of RA registered Yaks?

[IO540]

I am finding it very difficult to get my head around the legal aspects of this.You aren't the only one. I posted the URL to the FCL proposal, with a detailed analysis, in the Bizjets forum (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/417109-updated-easa-proposals-non-eu-irs.html), and nobody there thought it was anything other than license conversion, which would not affect an FAA CPL/IR flying an N-reg jet in Europe. I am sure they are wrong...

What EASA seem to be saying is that if you are a resident of an EU state you will not be legally able to fly say an N reg aircraft based in the EU without an EU licence. That seems to fly in the face of the ICAO conventions and the very basic world wide principle that if the state of registry of the aircraft and the state of issue of the licence match then you are legal. What then happens if the FAA licence lapses (either by expiry or by failure to have a BFR). The pilot is then entitled to fly an N reg aircraft on say an EASA licence within the EU?In that case the legality would depend on FAR 61.3 which says you need a license issued by the airspace owning country, and JAA or EASA (which is a mutual validation system for nationally issued licenses) is not recognised by the FAA.

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident? I think that's it.

You will have to have papers complying with the State of Registry, as well as EASA papers.

If your FAA papers go void, you are illegal worldwide (State of Registry requirement). If your EASA papers go void, you are illegal in the EU (airspace owner requirement, like e.g. carrying an ADF).

For a PPL that's not an issue, but it is for an IR, and more so for a CPL/IR flying a privately owned jet/TP for the owner.

How exactly that will be enforced is anyone's guess as a simple ramp check is unlikley to throw up any illegality.Well, yes... I guess it will work by self-policing, which tends to be driven by the insurance being void if you don't meet the regs.

This does not just relate to N reg. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU! Nor is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. What of RA registered Yaks?I think M-reg pilots (most of whom fly on IOM validations of FAA papers, validated by the IOM CAA specifically for the particular airframe) will need to get EASA papers too i.e. 14 exams for a CPL/IR, etc.

As I've written before, the practical bottom line (assuming EASA pull this off, despite the number of wealthy jet owners which will be p1ssed off) is whether we will be able to see it coming, before the present 15-hr IR conversion route disappears. That route is the least-bad way to comply with this crap. For a PPL/IR, 7 exams plus 15hrs with an instructir, plus a checkride. You can do it as a package in Greece of 6k euros.

[bern444]

It just endlessly astonishes me reading all these threads. The huge amount of time energy and money that human beings use up making endless - and endlessly changing - rules about metal boxes that move from one place to another, whether on the ground or in the sky.......

B

[IO540]

It is basically Politics of Envy.

No safety case.

[Cows getting bigger]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention?

Oh, silly me, Eurpoe isn't a State, yet. :ugh:

[Contacttower]

Thanks IO540 for the email, I guess there is little to do now that the comment period is over other than just wait and see. I read a lot of the comment by individuals and other organisations on the FCL documments on the EASA website and a lot of it was defending the rights of FAA licence holders in the EU however it doesn't seem to have made much difference to EASA's opinion.

I thought Jim Thorpe's article in PPL/IR on the matter was interesting and offered some hope, although again EASA don't have to listen to him...:E

[IO540]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention?Unfortunately for Europe, ICAO does allow the airspace owner absolute jurisdiction over his airspace.

For example the UK CAA can stop an FAA licensed pilot flying here in FAA medicals, or even FAA licenses. And they are reported to have exercised this right, where somebody has p1ssed them off. But it is very rare.

If this was not so, none of the 200 or so countries (most of which are permanent military dictatorships, anyway) would have never signed up.

It so happens that civilised countries (Europe, generally, etc) have not exercised this right, and have allowed international aviation.

EASA is now back-pedalling on it.

Their overt position is that they want a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA. IMHO the USA will never sign such a treaty, in the current security climate. And why should they? They dish out 61.75 papers to anybody who wants them.

EASA pretends that "61.75" is beneath them; a full treaty is the only acceptable "European way".

It is however possible that EASA is trying to do a "Saddam Hussein extra mile to avoid war" job on this, i.e. they know the FAA will never go for it, so they can say "we did our best but the FAA did not play ball, so we had no choice...". These people are seasoned old foxes, as is obvious when you meet any of them.

[Justiciar]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention

It is Article 32 (b) of the Convention which is the operative one here, which says that:

Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to
recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory,
certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its
nationals by another contracting State.

Not wishing to stir things up, but it seems to me that however half baked the proposals are in practice, legally the EASA approach is supported by the Convention, though I am not at all sure that the EU is a "Contracting state".

If I held an FAA IR I think I would be biting the bullet, doing the exams and the 15 hour conversion before that route disappears!!

[bookworm]

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident?

EASA also has competence over the continuing airworthiness of aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU. A similar level of alarm was raised about this issue.

NPA 2010-10 (http://www.easa.europa.eu/rulemaking/docs/npa/NPA%202010-10.pdf) sets out its proposals for dealing with this. As far as I can see, for non-complex aircraft the requirement is no more than what would be currently expected.

(More demanding requirements are imposed on operators of complex aircraft.)

T.A.201 Common requirements
1. The aircraft shall not be operated unless:
a. The aircraft is in an airworthy condition.
b. The operational and emergency equipment necessary for the intended flight is
serviceable.
c. The aircraft holds a valid certificate of airworthiness issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 8.
d. The maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with a maintenance
programme which shall comply with the requirements of Subpart C.
e. Any defect or damage affecting safe operation of the aircraft is rectified to a
standard acceptable to the State of Registry.
f. It complies with any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive adopted or mandated by the State of Registry,
(ii) operational mandatory information, issued or adopted by the State of
Operator,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the State of Registry.

T.A.230 Additional requirements for aircraft other than complex motor-powered
aircraft registered in a third country used into, within or out of the Community
by an operator established or residing in the Community, and aircraft other than
complex motor-powered aircraft registered in a third country and operated by
an ATO to provide training outside the territory of the EU for non-commercial
purposes.

1. The operator shall ensure that the requirements of T.A.201 are complied with.
2. The aircraft shall have a type-certificate issued or validated by the Agency.
3. The aircraft maintenance programme required pursuant to T.A.201 point 1 (d) shall
comply with the requirements established by the State of Registry.
4. Aircraft maintenance shall be performed by a qualified maintenance organisation
pursuant to Subpart E or by a person holding a license issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 1, as acceptable to the State of Registry.

Subpart C: Maintenance programme
T.A.301 Contents of the maintenance programme
1. The maintenance programme shall be based on maintenance programme
information made available by the organisation responsible for the type design.
2. The maintenance programme shall contain maintenance tasks and the intervals at
which such tasks are to be performed; taking into account the anticipated use of the
aircraft. In particular, the maintenance programme shall identify the tasks and
intervals that have been specified as mandatory in the instructions for continued
airworthiness.
T.A.302 Amendment of the maintenance programme
1. The ... operator ... is
responsible for the development of the maintenance programme and its compliance
with the State of Registry requirements.
2. The maintenance programme shall be amended as required by the State of
Registry.


Do we really have a reason to believe that the requirements for pilots on aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU will be more demanding?

[IO540]

Do we really have a reason to believe that the requirements for pilots on aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU will be more demanding?It's a fair question. But that is now how the EASA proposals stand at present.

Currently, we have no EASA interference in foreign reg pistons (SE or ME) or SE turboprops. That covers the vast majority of light GA.

But we do seem to have the requirement to get EASA licenses on top of the State of Registry ones. Do you read the FCL proposal differently, Bookworm? You of all people should be able to get your head around it.

IMHO what has happened is that EASA realised that keeping tabs on how long a bit of metal is parked somewhere in the EU was not going to work. France dropped the idea in 2004, the UK dropped it in 2005.

But requiring additional (local) pilot licences is a lot easier, and it achieves almost the same thing, i.e. indulging the European "we are superior" emotion.

Now, EASA can say that all pilots based here comply with the same "European standard" :yuk:

They don't have to comply with Part M maintenance, which is something... but that would have been tricky because one cannot overlay Part M over the top of Part 91, in the same way that one can overlay EASA FCL on top of ICAO FCL.

Overlaying Part M on top of Part 91 would raise many conflicts e.g. a retrofitted MFD approved by the FAA but not approved by EASA... if the EASA MO turns a blind eye to that (and they must, otherwise a Part M overlay amounts to an eviction of all FRAs from the EU) then the whole scheme is meaningless.

EASA are not stupid and they must have realised all this, a few years ago.

I still think they have failed to think through the residence definitions. They will be easy for most people but it will be the marginals which will show up the rules as meaningless.

In militarised 3rd world countries, most of which ban FRAs, this is usually implemented by nobody caring what you do, but after some months some official starts to make life hard for you. You have to get a permit for every flight, and the permit takes longer and longer. You have to pay bigger bribes. Eventually you get the message... but one cannot do this kind of stuff under European transparency.

[bookworm]

But we do seem to have the requirement to get EASA licenses on top of the State of Registry ones. Do you read the FCL proposal differently, Bookworm? You of all people should be able to get your head around it.

I think we'll find out real soon.

[IO540]

I need Mystic Meg (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/fabulous/fab_horoscopes/293749/March-21-April-30.html), evidently...

[jez d]

Their overt position is that they want a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA. IMHO the USA will never sign such a treaty, in the current security climate. And why should they? They dish out 61.75 papers to anybody who wants them.

EASA pretends that "61.75" is beneath them; a full treaty is the only acceptable "European way".

It is however possible that EASA is trying to do a "Saddam Hussein extra mile to avoid war" job on this, i.e. they know the FAA will never go for it, so they can say "we did our best but the FAA did not play ball, so we had no choice...". These people are seasoned old foxes, as is obvious when you meet any of them.

I couldn't agree with you more, IO540.

I would also add that the real political agenda here, IMHO, stems from European airlines' desire to be granted greater access to the US market, which they hope will be granted under a blanket bi-lateral agreement. But as you state, IO540, in the current security paranoid climate, Uncle Sam is highly unlikely to allow the next generation of FAA licensed terrorists to be trained outside of the USA - they'd far rather train them themselves.

[bookworm]

Do we really have a reason to believe that the requirements for pilots on aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU will be more demanding?

Do you read the FCL proposal differently, Bookworm? You of all people should be able to get your head around it.

Well, we do have a reason now.

I have it on good authority that the EASA 'Opinion' on FCL (excluding medical aspects) will be published 25th or 26th August on the EASA website. The Opinion is the final 'technical' stage as this Opinion goes to the EU Commission for consideration by the Member States' representatives (i.e. part of the political agreement process, which may extend to the Parliament).

Opinion No 04/2010 of the European Aviation Safety Agency of 26 August 2010 for a new Commission Regulation on personnel requirements laying down Implementing Rules for Pilot Licensing. (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Opinion%2004-2010.pdf)

Draft Regulation on Part-FCL (http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20(LW).pdf)

Article 1
Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 3
Pilot licensing
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL.

(Article 4(1)(c) of the BR 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;")

[IO540]

Oh gawwwd not another 209 pages :ugh: :)

OK, from the 2nd URL above... page 6 of the PDF:

Third country licences
1.
Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.
2.
Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced.
The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.
3.
Holders of an ATPL issued by or on behalf of a third country in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 who have completed the experience requirements for the issue of an ATPL in the relevant aircraft category established in Subpart F of Part-FCL may be credited in full with the requirements to undergo a training course prior to undertaking the theoretical knowledge examinations and the skill test, if the third
EN 6 EN
country licence contains a valid type rating for the aircraft to be used for the ATPL skill test.
4.
Aeroplane or helicopter type ratings may be issued to holders of Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates that comply with the requirements for the issue of those ratings established by a third country.
Such ratings will be restricted to aircraft registered in that third country.

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that EASA has climbed down from requiring all foreign reg pilots having to get EASA licenses?

Page 205 of the PDF onwards has the old stuff about

A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.

which is what we talked about before, which most people think is about license validation to fly EASA-reg planes. The PPL/IR conversion requirement is

4. In the case of private pilot licences with an instrument rating, or CPL and ATPL licences with an instrument rating where the pilot intends only to exercise private pilot privileges, the holder shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) complete the skill test for instrument rating and the type or class ratings relevant to the privileges of the licence held, in accordance with Appendix 7 and Appendix 9 to Part-FCL;
(b) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of Air Law, Aeronautical Weather Codes, Flight Planning and Performance (IR), and Human Performance;
(c) demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge of English in accordance with FCL.055;
(d) hold at least a valid Class 2 medical certificate issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1;
(f) have a minimum experience of at least 100 hours of instrument flight time as pilot-in-command in the relevant category of aircraft.

[my bold] i.e. 4 exams to sit, plus the IR checkride.

But, on page 207, they list conversion requirements

B. CONVERSION OF LICENCES
1. A PPL/BPL/SPL, a CPL or ATPL licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be converted into a Part-FCL PPL/BPL/SPL with a single-pilot class or type rating by the competent authority of a Member State.
The pilot shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where he/she resides or is established.
2. The holder of the licence shall comply with the following minimum requirements, for the relevant aircraft category:
(a) pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance;
(b) pass the PPL, BPL or SPL skill test, as relevant, in accordance with Part-FCL;
(c) fulfil the requirements for the issue of the relevant class or type rating, in accordance with Subpart H;
(d) hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate, issued in accordance with Part-Medical;
(e) demonstrate that he/she has acquired language proficiency in accordance with FCL.055;
(f) have completed at least 100 hours of flight time as a pilot.

which involves just 2 exams, plus the checkride. I don't get this... validation is 4 exams but a conversion to a EASA license is 2 exams.

What am I missing?

[Miroku]

Mods - hope you don't mind but I've put this message on two threads, both of which are relevant.


I've been in contact with AOPA regarding the proposed LAPL and received the following reply which I have their permision to quote:

I have been in contact with Dr Ian Perry, the AOPA/IAOPA medical representative at EASA, and he has been fully briefed regarding the importance ot UK NPPL holders being able to continue under EASA with a similar medical for the LAPL. as we have currently for the NPPL.

We will keep our members informed via the magazine when we have any final proposals regarding this matter.

Currently, EASA is proposing a medical with your GP for the LAPL, but the GP concerned is required to have some additional experience or qualification to cover him/her to undertake these medicals.

Ian Perry is currently at EASA at a meeting with the Medical Department and working on the subject of the LAPL medical for us.

[Private jet]

IO540,
With regards professional licenses I think it says that there could be a variable reduction in training requirements, based on your current qualifications/experience but you will still have to pass the theoretical exams and flight test to get an EASA license (you will still need to get one), thats all. Don't get your hopes up :sad: i note the word "may" is used a lot, so they are really promising nothing.

[IO540]

Historically, it has been true that "professional" pilots (CPL/ATP) have got better grandfather treatment than mere PPLs.

This is why I have always recommended to anybody doing the FAA PPL/IR to put in a bit more work and get a CPL/IR, and I did that myself.

Plus I run both CAA and FAA Class 1 medicals, just as an insurance policy, to lock-in Demonstrated Ability for ever... done concurrently with the right AME, this costs hardly more than just one Class 2.

Some original versions of the EASA stuff did look like this might mean something, but I have lost track of it now... it would be interesting to find an FAA CPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR (no use for an FAA CPL here anyway) easier than an FAA PPL/IR -> EASA PPL/IR.

What do you think?

[BillieBob]

....Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation. In EASAspeak, 'accept' means either 'validate' (allow the third country licence to be used in EASA aircraft for a limited period without issuing any form of EASA licence or certificate) or 'convert' (issue an EASA licence on the basis of the third country licence).

According to Annex III to the Regulation, a third country PPL with an instrument rating may be 'validated' (for a period not exceeding 1 year) and a third country PPL without an instrument rating may be either 'validated' or 'converted'. There is, however, no method of 'converting' an IR issued by a third country.

To 'validate' a PPL/IR requires 4 exams and the IR and class/type rating skill tests

To 'validate' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

To 'convert' only a PPL requires 2 exams and the PPL and class/type rating skill tests

I need to study both the opinion and the draft but, at first glance, it seems as though industry's reaction to the CRD has been wholly ignored.

[Private jet]

All i know is that these "EASAcrats" are expert bamboozlers, and with these types of people i have learnt from experience that its often not what they say thats important, its what they DON'T say. There is definately a "witch hunt" in the planning, for a myriad of political, social & economic reasons.

[IO540]

BB - if I understand you correctly, all you say is for use on an EASA aircraft.

What interests me is what EASA proposes to do regarding pilots who are flying ICAO (non EASA) aircraft on ICAO licenses.

I can't work it out. In the past, this has been worked out through some complex reasoning across the various proposals. Probably this:

There is, however, no method of 'converting' an IR issued by a third country.

is the key to it all i.e. an FAA PPL/IR will have to do the whole 50/55hrs dual.


All i know is that these "EASAcrats" are expert bamboozlersOf course they are. The whole thing is a huge expenses-driven gravy train - oddly enough employing a large number of British emigre mercenaries :)

I had some emails with EASA on the certification side, and it was obvious the bloke (a Brit) was making it up as he went along, when he used the phrase "the world has changed" in reply to a specific question I asked.

A colleague was recently installing a fairly big bit of avionics, and EASA required some other bit to be installed in a specified proximity to the first bit. This was a lot of work and after a few months of haggling over details this man said "I've had enough, I am abandoning this whole project". Guess what happened? Facing the loss of fees, EASA climbed down.

[Justiciar]

It seems to me reading the material that Conversion is very limited and is only a third country's PPL/CPL/ATPL -> PPL !! The is no conversion route for IR/CPL or ATPL, which begs the question of what a 10,000 hour ATPL does if he wants a job with an EU domicile airline or operator !! On the basis of these regulations he goes back to square one, which seems quite absurd, though I guess that is what an EU ATPL would have to do if he went to work in the US.

Nothing though in the document seems to affect the principle that FAA licence in N reg aircraft = perfectly legal, irrespective of residence, unless a regulation says differently, which at the moment it does not. I wonder though how many FAA IRs will be rushing to do the exams and 15 hours just in case ...

On a separate issue, how will anyone acquire the new aerobatic rating? To get one you have to be instructed by an FI or CRI who holds the rating. Since it is a new EASA rating no-one currently holds one so there is no one to instruct for the rating!!!:ugh:

[IO540]

which begs the question of what a 10,000 hour ATPL does if he wants a job with an EU domicile airline or operator !!That would be taken care of in a different way. In almost every country (I have researched this a little bit) an ICAO CPL/IR can get a local CPL/IR validation, or even a conversion, provided he has a relationship with a local commercial operator of aircraft registered in that country.

I have been offered one such deal, which would get me a JAA CPL/IR, but it would involve me living there for a bit... no use.

ATPL validation works similarly.

However I doubt say Virgin will take on anybody without the full gold plated JAA 14-exam stuff, etc. It was funny to read about R. Branson publicly offering to take on Capt. Sullenberger... how would he square the paperwork on that, I have absolutely no idea :) S. (not a spring chicken) would have taken one look at the JAA exams and stuck 1 finger up.

I wonder though how many FAA IRs will be rushing to do the exams and 15 hours just in case ... A significant number I know have been recently.

The 7 exams can be swatted up from the question bank and passed in two goes (revise properly only those you failed; there is no FAA-style oral exam probing the marginal-pass area) at Gatwick, and the 15hrs flying can be done at a few places. It can even be done in an N-reg (I know of one case) with DfT permission. The ground school is no longer mandatory-residential but from my enquiries you need what is basically a bit of preparation and a signoff to sit the exams which costs about £1k, plus the exam fees. Still a pretty big project, and I gather much of the large Flyer group of a few years ago has dropped out.

I don't see the rationale for doing this at present, if you own an N-reg. Obviously if you have a G-reg (or rent one) then you need to do something...... but then why did you do the FAA IR?

[bookworm]

Nothing though in the document seems to affect the principle that FAA licence in N reg aircraft = perfectly legal, irrespective of residence, unless a regulation says differently, which at the moment it does not. I wonder though how many FAA IRs will be rushing to do the exams and 15 hours just in case ...

What interests me is what EASA proposes to do regarding pilots who are flying ICAO (non EASA) aircraft on ICAO licenses.

I think you're missing the bit of the cover regulation that I quoted. Article 3 requires pilots involved in the operation of aircraft that are registered in the Community (Article 4(1)(b) of the BR) or registered in a third country and ... used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community (Article 4(1)(c) of the BR).

Thus if you, as an operator, are resident in the Community, you are required to have an EASA-Part-FCL licence even if you fly a foreign-registered aircraft. BillieBob has set out the (very limited) conversion and validation options.

[Justiciar]

Thus if you, as an operator, are resident in the Community, you are required to have an EASA-Part-FCL licence even if you fly a foreign-registered aircraft. BillieBob has set out the (very limited) conversion and validation options

Sorry, but I don't agree. The 2008 Regulation is an enabling regulation and the devil is in the detail of the Regulations now published. If you look at Article 7 of the basic regulation it says:

The requirements of the second and third subparagraphs 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.

This reflects the current position in international law. It does not seem to me that any detailed regulations have been proposed with regard to the default position under ICAO, which is that Foreign non EU registered aircraft may be flown with the appropriate (non EU) licence for the state of registry of the aircraft.

That would be taken care of in a different way. In almost every country (I have researched this a little bit) an ICAO CPL/IR can get a local CPL/IR validation, or even a conversion, provided he has a relationship with a local commercial operator of aircraft registered in that country.

May be now, but not under the new proposals, I fear. Annex III applies and conversion is limited to getting a PPL.

[Private jet]

IF EASA are planning on denying EU residents the right to fly non EU registered aircraft using non EASA licenses within EU airspace, professionally or privately, based purely on where they are domiciled, what would the human rights legal eagles make of that? Fighting fire with fire is maybe the answer?

[IO540]

IF EASA are planning on denying EU residents the right to fly non EU registered aircraft using non EASA licenses within EU airspace, professionally or privately, based purely on where they are domiciled, what would the human rights legal eagles make of that? Fighting fire with fire is maybe the answer?Even in the above very small text, you have managed to use two very different words: resident and domiciled.

:)

Do you want a better indication of the difficulty in drafting meaningful law based on this crap?

If they use tax residence, that is tricky because (as any competent accountant will tell you) many people are in an ambiguous position on that. Especially paid CPL/IR pilots, living out of hotels.

The ICAO wording (allowing jurisdiction within the member's airspace) is "nationals", not "residents", IIRC, which AIUI means "citizens" which is something else again. But EASA has not used that one. They have used "residents", etc.

[Justiciar]

Domicile is really an English law concept which has little application in European Civil Law countries, where they use residence or nationality, so one of those terms is the more appropriate terms and the more reflective of what some eurocrats may be trying to achieve.

[bookworm]

The 2008 Regulation is an enabling regulation and the devil is in the detail of the Regulations now published. If you look at Article 7 of the basic regulation it says:

The requirements of the second and third subparagraphs 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.

Unfortunately, this is covered in the draft cover reg.

Article 7
Third country licences
1. Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.
...
ANNEX III
TO THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES

Annex III goes on to cover validations for up to 12 months, and conversions of PPLs. There is no generic "acceptance" of foreign licences for third-country operators.

When I made my earlier posts (before the opinion was published) I was thinking along the same lines as you. But unfortunately it looks quite explicit in the IRs.

[Justiciar]

Still don't agree.

Annex III covers the basic requirements for pilots licensing under the EASA regime, but the bit of Article 7 I referred to excludes Annex III when there is reliance on licences issued by a third country, otherwise the 7th sub paragraph makes no sense. That is not to say that EASA cannot legislate to cover this area, the Basic Law simply allows for Europe to do what ICAO contemplates and render legal flights where the state of registration and state of licence are the same.

[Private jet]

IO540 et al, Apologies, i was referring to EU citizenship, i.e nationals (people the "human rights" legislation is applicable to). My poor choice of words confusing an already confusing situation! but i hope you can see the point i was alluding too.
I fly an M reg aircraft. There are, i believe, about 150 now on that register and several hundred pilots with validations, the majority using FAA ATP's. These aircraft are operated by some big multinational corporations and very wealthy individuals who will not take too kindly to this "political" nonsense if it costs them money and creates complications for operations which function perfectly well as they are. Flight departments should make their employers aware of what is potentially in the pipeline, and let nature take its course. A solution will present itself with a bit of influential lobbying, believe me. Hopefully this will apply to the PPL's too, if not thats why i suggested human rights legislation. Think outside the box.
Kind regards

[bookworm]

Annex III covers the basic requirements for pilots licensing under the EASA regime, but the bit of Article 7 I referred to excludes Annex III when there is reliance on licences issued by a third country, otherwise the 7th sub paragraph makes no sense.

Different Annex IIIs and different Art 7s! The Essential Requirements for Pilot Licensing are Annex III of the Basic Regulation.

Art 7 of the FCL regulations refers to Annex III to the FCL regulations. The latter pair are the "detailed regulations" you refer to in your post above.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[Justiciar]

But, as was said much earlier, the FCL regulations Annex III are about validation and conversion of foreign to EASA licences, none of which applies to third country licence being used to fly a third country registered aircraft, i.e. without any need for either validation or conversion.

Part-FCL says absolutely nothing about any requirement to obtain an EASA licence to fly non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if you happen to be a resident of the EU, as many have feared. That does not mean to say there are not more regulations in the wings.

[Justiciar]

Justiciar, are you the chap who was formerly a Barrister but is now a Judge?

Afraid not :{ You are referring to His Honour Judge Tudor Owen, aka Flying Lawyer.

[bookworm]

Part-FCL says absolutely nothing about any requirement to obtain an EASA licence to fly non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if you happen to be a resident of the EU, as many have feared.

I don't see how you can read the draft reg and still say that. Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation covers a "non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if [the operator] happens to be a resident of the EU". Article 1 of the FCL cover regulation brings the pilots of these aircraft into the scope of Part-FCL. Article 3 of the FCL cover regulation says that these pilots must be qualified in accordance with Part-FCL, in other words that they must have an EASA licence or validation.

[youngskywalker]

I asked Brian Johnston, head of the Isle of Man aviation authority a month or so ago, if the EASA regulations were going to affect the operation of 'M' registered aircraft by FAA only licenced crews. He answered that he is not aware of any forthcoming rule changes and that they are not part of EASA anyway. He seems like a very decent, entirely trustworthy and straight talking chap so I'm inclined to believe him on this one.

[IO540]

I am sure he is right, as far as he goes.

The key will be whether an IOM residence will be classed (by EASA) as EU residence.

If not, M-reg will be "third country aircraft", just like e.g. N-reg, and their pilots may have to get EASA papers, as well as maintain the original FAA/IOM ones. Unless the owner/pilot lives in the IOM, in which case he will be fine.

If yes then he is sitting over a fantastic loophole :)

IMHO, the answer is no (because the IOM is not in the EU) so only IOM resident owners/pilots will be protected from EASA. And probably same for Jersey/Guernsey ones.

What happens about e.g. Norway or Croatia I wonder? Not in the EU so living there is not EU resident.

[Justiciar]

I don't see how you can read the draft reg and still say that. Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation covers a "non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if [the operator] happens to be a resident of the EU". Article 1 of the FCL cover regulation brings the pilots of these aircraft into the scope of Part-FCL. Article 3 of the FCL cover regulation says that these pilots must be qualified in accordance with Part-FCL, in other words that they must have an EASA licence or validation.

Because that is exactly what the Basic Regulations say. You cannot compartmentalise regulations or sections of regulations. You have to have regard to the totality including Article 7 of the basic regulation and indeed to the treaty obligations of the member states, one of which is their obligations under ICAO. There is certainly a presumption in English law when interpreting statutes that the state does not intend to legislate contrary to its international obligations. So, it is unlikely that EASA intends to cut across international obligations in the way you suggest.

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL, but that is clearly not the intention of the Regulations, nor its effect. I recall a friend who flew for Cathay having to have HK ATPL because the aircraft were Hong Kong registered; likewise if you fly for BA, Air France Air India etc. That is logical, but I don't believe for one second that EASA intends that every pilot crossing its borders but working for a foreign carrier with foreign registered aircraft needs an EASA ATPL.

[IO540]

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL, but that is clearly not the intention of the Regulations, nor its effect. I recall a friend who flew for Cathay having to have HK ATPL because the aircraft were Hong Kong registered; likewise if you fly for BA, Air France Air India etc. That is logical, but I don't believe for one second that EASA intends that every pilot crossing its borders but working for a foreign carrier with foreign registered aircraft needs an EASA ATPL.This was one of the objections raised very early to the EASA FCL proposals, and it would obviously show them to be a farce.

It was then suggested by various people that EASA would make an exemption for AOC holders, which would be easily done with a single sentence. This would have the effect of allowing AOC operators to carry on under ICAO provisions, while shafting non-AOC business jets and all the rest of GA below that level.

Yet, it appears that this proposal does not have such an exemption!

[Justiciar]

Yet, it appears that this proposal does not have such an exemption!

Which to me is confirmation that the whole proposal has been quietly dropped, because it would be virtually unenforceable. If this proposal is as some here have interpreted it then every pilot in every non EU registered aircraft would be unable to fly into any EU country unless they had an EASA licence. I suspect that the Americans would have something to say about this. It would of course cut right across all the civil air transport right in the Chicago convention, which enshrines the free passage of foreign aircraft across the airspace of another state for non scheduled service purposes. There is further more nothing in the Part FCL which anywhere draws a distinction between EASA and Non EASA resident pilots.

[bookworm]

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL

Neither Delta nor Emirates are "an operator established or residing in the Community". They fall under Article 4(1)(d) of the Basic Regulation. Article 7 of the BR does not apply to them, and Article 1 of Part-FCL does not place their pilots within its scope.

The issue is about operators of foreign-registered aircraft "established or residing in the Community", covered by Article 4(1)(c). The Basic Regulation is structured with a clear difference between resident and non-resident operators.

As you yourself pointed out in post #19, the CC allows a state to reject foreign licences issued to its own nationals. There is, without doubt, a difference between residence and nationality, but I would be rather surprised if EASA and the EC had not sought a legal opinion on the interaction of the Basic Regulation with the CC.

[bookworm]

You might also find Opinion 3/2004 (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/03_2004/easa_opinion_03_2004_en.pdf) relevant.

22. Concerning non-commercial activities of third country aircraft operated by third
country operators, the Agency agreed with many comments received that it would
be disproportionate to establish Community competence just to address the issue
of foreign aircraft more or less permanently based in the territory of Member
States. This indeed can be best addressed by adapting the text of Article 4(1)(c) of
the Basic Regulation so as to submit aircraft registered in a third country used in
the territory of Member States by a person residing in a Member State to the same
requirements as EU registered aircraft.

Thus EASA seems to think that this can be done without violating international conventions.

[Justiciar]

That is about aircraft not licences! And so far they have not implemented any such proposals, but I agree entirely that the threat remains.

Re Emirates etc, you are right and I made a bad point. Too late at night after a good days flying!!

[BillieBob]

That is about aircraft not licences!Quite. There is a misunderstanding here about the structure and inter-relationship between the Basic Regulation and the Implementing Rules. The rules relating to the operation of third country aircraft in EU airspace by EU residents holding only an ICAO licence do not and will not appear in Part FCL, which deals only with the rules relating to the issue and maintenance of EASA pilot licences, ratings and certificates. It is more likely that this area of the Basic Regulation will be addressed in Part OPS, the NPA for which has not yet been published.

Simply put, Part OPS will tell you whether you need an EASA licence, Part FCL will tell you how to get one.

[IO540]

It is more likely that this area of the Basic Regulation will be addressed in Part OPS, the NPA for which has not yet been published.Hasn't it? I thought something had, a few months ago.

I too recall reading somewhere, a few months ago, that EASA said that it would be the OPS stuff which would enable it to control 3rd country aircraft.

Re Emirates etc, you are right and I made a bad point. Not necessarily. There are now UK based AOC operators flying non EU reg aircraft. I did some research on this a long time ago and the DfT grants permissions for this provided no local based operators lodge an objection, IIRC. Emirates could well have an EU based operating company. All this stuff will have to be covered somehow.

The whole issue of "residence" is going to be very complex and - for many - quite impossible to resolve. For starters, anybody with a non-EU tax residence which is accepted by their local HMRC inspector is going to have a pretty good defence. Throw in some goodies like the plane being owned and leased out by a Jersey operating company and it gets better still. And ever since EASA came out with the 'operator' stuff it has been stated that N-regs, owned often by US based companies, will be yet another case.

To me, this stuff looks like it was produced by a committee which set out to boot out foreign reg ops (no shortage of people in Europe to fill the chairs on that one; go to any aviation related conference and pick out the aviation officials who have never flown a plane; any of them would do just fine) but the committee's deliberations were moderated by some slightly more realistic people higher up, but nobody has (yet) stepped back and looked at the overall picture.

[bookworm]

Simply put, Part OPS will tell you whether you need an EASA licence, Part FCL will tell you how to get one.

Part OPS will not tell you whether you need an EASA licence. It is quite clearly set out in the cover regulation of Part-FCL, which I will quote one more time:

Article 1
Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 3
Pilot licensing
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL.

[bookworm]

I too recall reading somewhere, a few months ago, that EASA said that it would be the OPS stuff which would enable it to control 3rd country aircraft.

The OPS NPA has been published (NPA 2009-02), but as seems to be EASA's convention, did not include a draft Cover Regulation. The OPS Cover Regulation will be similarly worded and will apply to "air operators using aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation and personnel involved in the operation of such aircraft". Note that's the same scope as the Part-FCL cover reg.

[IO540]

The positive aspect of such an aggressive position is that it will cause a riot, and probably fail.

Some halfway proposition would probably get adopted, with a much worse outcome for pilots.

[Peter PanPan]

Very interesting thread, can anyone list the major changes with regards to FCL that will take place with EASA, listing bullet points for instance: IR conversion for instance...

I am actually surprised that this topic isn't really discussed in the professional forums. Anyone knows wether EASA will adopt a new format for the license? Credit card type with a picture maybe?

[dublinpilot]

I doubt a picture with be incorporated.

The regs are drafted still state that you need to carry picture id in addition to your licence.

I commented on that section during the consultation and the response what that they don't see a need to include a photo on the pilots licence.

[BillieBob]

Bookworm is quite correct and demonstrates the dangers of relying on a failing memory when posting from a third-rate airport in the middle of the night while waiting for Pedro to change a nosewheel tyre. I should have waited until I got back to my books. What I should have said, of course, is that no further information should be expected from Part-FCL, which deals only with how to obtain and maintain the licences, ratings and certificates required by the Basic Regulation.

EASA's position may be clarified by its response to various comments in the CRD to NPA 2008-17b, such as:

"The Basic Regulation establishes two possible ways to accept a licence issued by a third country: through a bilateral agreement celebrated between the Community and that third country and, in the case of aircraft registered in a third country flown by an operator established or residing in the Community, though unilateral acceptance based on related implementing rules. A proposal for those rules was included in NPA 2008-17, in Annex III to the Licensing regulation."

Further, the following statement was made in response to a comment on Annex III:

"In relation to the issue of the IR, however, it needs to be said that it is widely known that the content of the training required by the FARs and the JARs is different, specifically on the level of the theoretical knowledge. The Agency considers that an equivalent level of knowledge and proficiency needs to be ensured for pilots flying under IFR in the European air space in order to ensure safety. It is further considered that the requirements that were included in JAR-FCL and have been included in the Agency's proposal are adequate to guarantee that. The Agency does not intend to fundamentally change these requirements without a dedicated assessment."

In response to a comment by the FAA regarding the applicability of Annex III, the following statement was made:

"The sentence ‘established or residing in the Community’ includes both private/ commercial operators whose principle place of business is within the territory of the Community. For private pilots (GA pilots) this means their place of residence. For organisations, it means the place where their principle place of business is: the place of their head office or registered office within which the principal financial functions and operational control, including continued airworthiness management, of the Community operator are exercised."

These statements clearly confirm the Agency's intent that an operator established or residing in the Community will be able to operate a third country aircraft only on the basis of the rules in Annex III to the Cover Regulation (i.e. either by validation for up to a year or by conversion, which applies only to the licence and associated class/type rating but not to any other rating or certificate such as the IR). Since this provision is in the Basic Regulation, that is already EU law, there is no realistic way to change it in the short term, no matter what 'influence' owners of such aircraft may think they have.

Consequently, an EU-based/resident operator of a third-country aircraft (including M-Reg aircraft owned by organisations with a principle place of business in the EU) who holds an ICAO licence with instrument rating could convert the licence and any associated type/class rating in accordance with Annex III but would subsequently have to obtain an EASA IR. However, Article 7 of the Cover Regulation allows for a reduction of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours to be reduced on the recommendation of an approved training organisation and so it would not be necessary for an individual to complete the full approved course(s) to obtain an EASA IR. They would, however, be required to pass the relevant theoretical knowledge examinations and skill test.

[IO540]

Currently, you have 7 exams for the JAA PPL/IR (for both an ab initio PPL/IR and the ICAO to EASA IR conversion):

a. Air Law/Operational Procedures
b. Aircraft General Knowledge
c. Flight Performance & Planning
d. Human Performance & Limitations
e. Meteorology
f. Navigation
g. Communications (IFR)

How many exams would be needed for the EASA PPL/IR, for the conversion?

[Justiciar]

Article 1
Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 3
Pilot licensing
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL

You are still ignoring the bit about acceptance of third country licences in Article 4!

Look at the recital to the basic law:


In addition, third-country aircraft operated into, within or out of the territory where the Treaty applies should be subject to appropriate oversight at Community level within the limits set by the Convention on International Civil
Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 (the Chicago Convention), to which all Member States are parties

(the Euro lawmakes love recitals in legislation because courts over there give legislation what is termed a purposive interpretation, i.e. what is intended by the legislation rather than simply looking at the bare words divorced from the intent behind it).

Yes, this does entitle them to refuse to recognise - or place limits upon - licences granted by third countries to EU citizens. The question is not can they do it but have they (no) or will they (possibly). As IO540 points out, this issue is a lot more complex than trying to restrict a few FAA IR holders based in the EU from exercising the privileges of their licence on N reg aircraft. There are a lot of businesses which could be seriously inconvenienced and have additional costs needlessly added to their operations. This last point is particularly significant in the present climate when we face the prospect of a stalled recovery. The threat by those companies based in the EU to move their base of operations outside the EU may have a sobering effect on the EU ministers.

BillieBob: EASA say all sorts of things at various stages of the process, but the draft regulations do not address all the points previously raised. For example, Annex III tells you in detail what the process of validation and conversion is, but it does not tell you the cases where such validation of conversion is required under EU law. I defy anyone to show anything in the draft regs saying that if you are a holder of a third country licence residing in the EU then you require a conversion or validation to lawfully fly that third country's aircraft in the EU. Point me to the draft regulation that says this.

Let us not forget that these regulations need EU Council of Ministers and possibly Parliamentary approval. Having only recently told EASA to stop re-inventing the wheel it remains to be seen how the ministers and commission react to this injunction having been blatently ignored.

You may yet see EASA told to go back and come back with something simpler such as simply adopting JAA into EASA.

[BEagle]

You may yet see EASA told to go back and come back with something simpler such as simply adopting JAA into EASA.

Let's hope so!

[IO540]

I hope so too, not just for myself (though I could knock off the JAA PPL/IR in a few months if I really had to) but for the havoc it would cause higher up the GA food chain.

Sure one can think of ways to get around it. For example any VP-reg jet owner (let's assume he is non EU resident) could fire his pilots, transfer the jet to EU-reg, and hire JAA CPL/IRs out of the well stocked ex airline pilot pool, etc.

More cheaply, he could stick with the VP- jet and fire just the EU-resident crew and replace them with Croatians living out of hotels, with no permanent address. In practice, given EASA's use of "resident" rather than ICAO's "national" (citizen) terminology, any pilot would do if he has no evident fixed address. This aspect will be impossible to enforce on any operator who has done the usual employer's due diligence on employees who will now have a huge incentive to conceal where they live. It is just a total and complete load of bollox.

But, as a businessman myself, I don't think the typical operator is ready and willing to treat trusted employees (especially people who fly him and his family around) like dirt.

[421C]

Sure one can think of ways to get around it. For example any VP-reg jet owner (let's assume he is non EU resident) could fire his pilots, transfer the jet to EU-reg, and hire JAA CPL/IRs out of the well stocked ex airline pilot pool, etc.

More cheaply, he could stick with the VP- jet and fire just the EU-resident crew and replace them with Croatians living out of hotels, with no permanent address


IO,
I think you've misunderstood the Basic Regulation. It says that an Operator residing in the EU must abide by the EASA regs. But there is nothing to stop an Operator outside the EU using crew within the EU who reside in the EU. For example, an Asian airline may have crew who live in the UK. They do not need EASA FCL licences - just the licences of the state of registry.

The problem is for FRA operators residing in the EU...

brgds
421C

[IO540]

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out.

[BillieBob]

For example, Annex III tells you in detail what the process of validation and conversion is, but it does not tell you the cases where such validation of conversion is required under EU law.Of course not - that is not the purpose of Part FCL.Point me to the draft regulation that says this.Article 3 of the Basic Regulation states: "Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL."

Article 1 states: This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. The licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 4(1)(c) states: Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(c) 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....

Therefore, combining all of the referenced parts - Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL (i.e hold an EASA licence or a third country licence validated by a competent authority in accordance with Annex III).
How many exams would be needed for the EASA PPL/IR, for the conversion?For conversion of the PPL -
Air Law
Human Performance

For issue of an IR -
Air Law
AGK - Instrumentation
Flight Performance & Monitoring
Human Performance
Meteorology
Radio Navigation
IFR Communications

Since the Air Law and Human Performance for issue of the IR will also be valid for conversion of the PPL, a total of 7.

[Justiciar]

Article 3 of the Basic Regulation states: "Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL."

Article 1 states: This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. The licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 4(1)(c) states: Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(c) 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..

This debate becomes no better informed by selectively quoting bits of the basic law without paying regard to the whole. Once again you fail to do this. I suggest you consider all the provisions of the basic law, but particularly Article 7 and its specific reference to Article 4(1)(c), which is the provision covering third country registered aircraft where the operator is "established or resident" in a Member State and is exactly the point we are all debating. Of course, the use of the word "may" leaves the door open to direct regulation by EASA, I fully accept that. However, looking at the present position there is nothing in the proposed regulations which amounts to such direct regulation and which says to people like IO540: "you must have an EASA IR if you wish to continue using your N reg TB20 to fly IFR in the EU", nothing at all.

In the absence of specific direct regulation of the issue the position remains what it is under ICAO Conventions and treaties (and recognised by our own ANO). If EASA meant to derogate from the treaties etc. it would have to specifically say so. So far, it has not, though it may in the future.

[bookworm]

Of course, the use of the word "may" leaves the door open to direct regulation by EASA, I fully accept that.

You clearly don't accept that Article 7 of Part-FCL is exactly that "direct regulation". Let me have one more go.

Art 7 paragraph 6 of the Basic Regulation says:

6. The measures designed to amend non-essential elements of
this Article by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance
with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in
Article 65(4). Those measures shall specify in particular:
(a) the different ratings for pilots' licences and the medical
certificates adequate for the different types of activities
performed;
(b) the conditions for issuing, maintaining, amending, limiting,
suspending or revoking licences, ratings for licences,
medical certificates, approvals and certificates referred to
in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, and the conditions under
which such certificates and approvals need not be
requested;
(c) the privileges and responsibilities of the holders of licences,
ratings for licences, medical certificates, approvals and
certificates referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5;
(d) the conditions for the conversion of existing national pilots'
licences and of national flight engineers' licences into pilots'
licences as well as the conditions for the conversion of
national medical certificates into commonly recognised
medical certificates;
(e) without prejudice to the provisions of bilateral agreements
concluded in accordance with Article 12, the conditions for
the acceptance of licences from third countries;
(f) how pilots of aircraft referred to in points (a)(ii), (d) and (f)
of Annex II, when used for commercial air transportation,
comply with the relevant essential requirements of
Annex III.

In other words, EASA is to make implementing rules to flesh out the details of the previous paragraphs of Article 7.

Part-FCL is the collection of those "measures", the implementing rules. (a), (b), (c) and (f) are covered by Part-FCL Article 3 and Annex I. (d) is covered by Part-FCL Article 4 and Annex II. And (e) is covered by Part-FCL Article 7 and Annex III, which is entitled "REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES".

Thus Part-FCL Article 7 and Annex III describe the mechanism by which "the requirements of the second and third subparagraphs 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."

And when Part-FCL Article 7 says:

Third country licences
1. Without prejudice to Article 1, Member States may accept third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation.

it doesn't mean

"Member States may accept third country licences ... in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to this Regulation or alternatively by just accepting the licences issued by third countries without further ado."

It means that Annex III describes, exhaustively, the ways in which Member States are permitted to "accept" third country licences.

[BillieBob]

I suggest you consider all the provisions of the basic law, but particularly Article 7 and its specific reference to Article 4(1)(c)....Justiciar, I can only think that you are confusing Annex III of two different regulations. You refer to Article 7 of the Basic Regulation, which states "Pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c), as well as flight simulation training devices, persons and organisations involved in the training, testing, checking or medical assessment of these pilots, shall comply with the relevant ‘essential requirements’ laid down in Annex III." This reference is to Annex III of the Basic Regulation (Essential requirements for pilot licensing referred to in Article 7) and not to Annex III of the Implementing Regulation (Requirements for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries).

The fact is that, as currently drafted, Article 3 of the Implementing Regulation clearly requires pilots of third country aircraft used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community to be licensed in accordance with Part FCL. In order to achieve this, Member States may accept (i.e. validate or convert) third country licences, including any associated ratings, certificates, authorisations and/or qualifications and medical certificates issued by or on behalf of third countries, in accordance with the provisions of Annex III to the Implementing Regulation.

[Contacttower]

It would have been nice if EASA perhaps published a 'plain English' Q&A to accompany the publication of these documents, it would be so much easier than this constant debate about what the regs and their potential implications are.

The problem I see is that I doubt the Commission and the European Parliament really know much about what EASA is actually doing, aviation is quite a technical subject and unless someone explains to them why some of the proposals are a bad idea they won't have any reason to reject them.

[IO540]

It would have been nice if EASA perhaps published a 'plain English' Q&A to accompany the publication of these documents

If they did that, the various stakeholders would be much better placed to comment, plus adverse news would spread much more widely, which is not in EASA's interest. The best way for them to do their job is to publish 500 page documents.

If I was running EASA, on the super expense gravy train called the EU, I would be doing the same thing.

Currently, the biggest stakeholders are mostly in the dark. When the 2005 UK DfT proposal came out (to boot out N-regs after 90 days' parking in the UK) I faxed, by name, the marketing head of every TP and jet mfg in the world. From the responses I got, almost none of them knew anything about it. Socata did, but then EADS own the French Govt, who in turn set up EASA, originally for Airbus certification ;) I did the same exercise more recently and got some interesting responses; the big names are apparently lobbying in Brussels now, at the top level.

[Clearedils]

This discussion has been going on for a long time indeed, not restricted to EASA.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the UK ANO already prohibit a flight crew member to be paid for his services with a non UK licence in Section 1 Part 6?

Deeming a non-United Kingdom flight crew licence valid
(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises
the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is
not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the
CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under
this Order.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply to such a licence if it authorises the holder to act as a
student pilot only.
(4) A licence deemed valid under paragraph (2) does not entitle the holder:
(a) to act as a member of the flight crew of any aircraft flying for the purpose of
commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work or on any flight for which
the holder receives remuneration for services as a member of the flight crew; or
(b) in the case of a pilot's licence, to act as pilot of any aircraft flying in controlled
airspace in circumstances requiring compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules
or to give any instruction in flying.
(5) A JAA licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, a licence rendered
valid under this Order.

Anyone?

[421C]

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the UK ANO already prohibit a flight crew member to be paid for his services with a non UK licence in Section 1 Part 6?


That part applies to G-registered aircraft. There's nothing in the ANO that stops a foreign-registered aircraft operating in the UK with a paid crew that hold licences from the state of registry only.

Of course, the operation they are allowed to perform is restricted to the rules of their own registry (eg. private vs commerical/PT) and the UK rules (eg. a US Part 135 operator can't offer air taxi within the UK).

Under EASA, if the operator is EU resident, any crew (private or paid) will have to have EASA FCL licences (although they may continue to operate a foreign-registered aircraft in the EU with relatively few other hassles).

brgds
421C

[IO540]

will have to have EASA FCL licences

When I posted this a while ago in the Bizjet forum, nobody there believed the above.

Do they know something, or are they just ignorant?

I am in two minds whether this astonishingly aggressive position is true. I know some well placed regulatory people who disagree with the aggressive interpretation, and Eric Sivel (head? of EASA rulemaking) himself has said similar things to various people face to face over the years (myself included).

As I have said many times, it would create havoc.

[421C]

When I posted this a while ago in the Bizjet forum, nobody there believed the above.

Do they know something, or are they just ignorant?

I am in two minds whether this astonishingly aggressive position is true. I know some well placed regulatory people who disagree with the aggressive interpretation, and Eric Sivel (head? of EASA rulemaking) himself has said similar things to various people face to face over the years (myself included).

As I have said many times, it would create havoc.


IO,
This is an odd sort of topic to debate. The principle that EU operators will need EU FCL Licences is not new. It was established in the original consultation to the EASA Basic Regulation. Then published in the Basic Regulation (ie. EU law), then in the original FCL-NPA draft, in the Comment Response Documents and now the final Draft.

I don't care who "doesn't believe it", or what anyone has said officially or unofficially. It's there in black and white. It's all on the EASA website.

The only question has been what mitigation may be available through the final NPA draft, now published. What is there is pretty limited - some licence conversion principles which are broadly similar to JAR-FCL (but with training requirements at ATO and NAA discretion), and the fairly big concession for turbine operators that 3rd country Type Ratings are fully accepted onto EASA FCL Licences for use on aircraft registered in that 3rd country.

I don't know a single person who has had any involvement or understanding of this process "who doesn't believe it". It's just silly. It's already been published as EU law (the Basic Regs) and draft EU legal Implementing Rules (EASA FCL).

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out.
No. The definition of Operator is someone who has operational control of the aircraft. The EU lawyers very smartly worded this one IMHO. It would require a conspiracy in which you are the pretend 'corporate' pilot of some offshore entity which asked you to fly to places that coincidentally where the ones you wanted to fly to. Courts rip this kind of thing apart in minutes. The only legal avoidance possible is to go and reside outside the EU.

brgds
421C

PS

As I have said many times, it would create havoc.
...and I have disagreed with you many times. What 'havoc'? You've had this theory that the disruption the EASA FCL rules would impose on EU corporate operators of foreign-registered aircraft would lead to some lobbying effort which would scupper the whole thing. I think you have been proven wrong on this. It hasn't. It has barely deflected the whole process which has been running for over 4 years now.
I've made the arguments before so not sure I can be bothered to repeat them, but briefly - I don't believe the challenge of the JAA IR has any bearing at all on why business jets in Europe are operated on 3rd country registers. There are a mass of other reasons (tax, privacy, issues of cost and difficulty of getting EASA certification for certain types and modifications etc etc). None of these (very cleverly) are impacted by the EASA regs, only the FCL one.
Just go and look at how much of a shortage there is of pilots with European professional licences and then tell me how much 'havoc' there would be. I know a fair few people who fly N, M, VP turbine aircraft corporately, but I don't know any who don't have JAA qualifications. I am sure there are some, but not enough to cause even the mildest havoc....

[421C]

Eric Sivel (head? of EASA rulemaking) himself has said similar things to various people face to face over the years (myself included).
He is reported as having said the contrary last weekend at Duxford. See last post on page 1 of this thread:
FLYER Forums • View topic - Duxford AOPA Bonus Day Saturday 18th September 2010 (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=65636)

[IO540]

You ought to post this on the Bizjet forum where it will get an audience more appropriate to the gravity (like.... pilots losing their jobs).

From flyer.co.uk

The CAA seemed to think that we are free to choose a flag of choice but Eric was quick to stamp on this by observing that operators based in Europe will be subject to EASA regulation regardless of flag. For me this was the key point in the meeting. There is indeed a dark plan regarding the 'N'.Yes, this is well known and understood. ME turboprops and all jets will have to pay an EASA Part M company for some paperwork... another ripoff scheme, prob99 motivated by the fact that practically all SE TPs flying in Europe are made in Europe but all ME TPs and currently flying jets are made in the USA, and EUs revenge for the FAA having apparently refused to sign a treaty with EASA for everything ranging from Euro airlines being able to operate within the USA to.... mutual license recognition :)

Has Sivel actually stated openly directly and unambiguously that duplicate licenses will be mandatory? He holds a PPL so must be able to give a clear answer.

[421C]

Yes, this is well known and understood
Respectfully, you've just misunderstood it, by assuming "operators based in Europe will be subject to EASA regulation regardless of flag" does not apply to EASA FCL regulations. It does. It's reasonably clear in loads of EASA docs they keep publishing and EU laws are already on the statute book (but not implemented yet).


Has Sivel actually stated openly directly and unambiguously that duplicate licenses will be mandatory? He holds a PPL so must be able to give a clear answer.
I don't know. Who cares? It's written plainly and consistently throughout the EASA regulations. I can't really make a clearer point on this.


You ought to post this on the Bizjet forum where it will get an audience more appropriate to the gravity (like.... pilots losing their jobs). I imagine that few pilots are going to lose their jobs, hence the lack of interest in the subject. Don't you think a professional pilot for an EU operator who happens not to have EU licences won't just go out an do the ATPL writtens and the relatively quick conversion courses for CPL and IR?
Remember, people with no flying background and little hope of getting flying jobs borrow £100k to get these quals. Surely someone with a pilot job already is going to do the conversion at a fraction of the cost of an ab inito candidate? Call it £1500 for the writtens all in, £2000 for the CPL, £5000k for the IR, give or take £1k. So that's £10k. Compared to what? £60k modular, £100k integrated?

[IO540]

£10k must be a just a day's work for a professional pilot.

I am in the wrong business.

[421C]

£10k must be a just a day's work for a professional pilot.

I am in the wrong business.


I don't understand that reply. My point was a simple one: if people without pilot jobs find or borrow £50k-£100k for the (perhaps remote) chance of one day getting one, I think it unlikely that many pilots with jobs will be forced out of aviation by the cost of covnerting FAA qualifications to JAA ones. I didn't say or imply in the slightest that £10k was a trivial sum. Pilots go to great lengths and make a lot of sacrifices to pursue their careers.

[IO540]

What is the total conversion process for an FAA ATP who has zero EU-reg-aircraft time, to a JAA ATPL, for a multi crew jet like say a Lear 45?

[421C]

IO,
I'm no expert in conversion for experienced pro pilots, see LASORS for detail. IIRC, there is no way to avoid the full set of JAA ATPL exams in order to get a full JAA ATPL.

The rest is down to hours. Worst case, a CPL skills test (training as reqd) and an IR skills test (15hrs min). Under EASA FCL, the LJ45 TR can be carried over. More typical/better JAA case, a TR checkride on the LJ45 and that's it.

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

421C

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out. No. The definition of Operator is someone who has operational control of the aircraft. The EU lawyers very smartly worded this one IMHO. It would require a conspiracy in which you are the pretend 'corporate' pilot of some offshore entity which asked you to fly to places that coincidentally where the ones you wanted to fly to. Courts rip this kind of thing apart in minutes. The only legal avoidance possible is to go and reside outside the EU.


Can I come back on this aspect of the proposed legisaltion please 421C or Bookworm. Within the GA community it is usual for N reg aircraft to be owned by an off shore trust to meet the FAA requirements. There is no doubt under trust law the trustees are the owner of the aircraft. Also it is usual under the terms of the trust agreement for the trustees to authorise certain pilots to operate the aircraft, but I am interested whether this constitutes "operational control". It seems to me there is a raft of issues connected with the operational control of an aircraft. The operator (in this case the trustees) may (and often do) lay down a whole series of requirements which must be met before a pilot can operate their aircraft; moreover these requirements will and do change. I dont entirely follow the fact that the pilot decides the destination of the aircraft in itself constitutes "operational control". After all where ever the pilot may or may not decide to go is irrelevant if he has not complied with the operational requirments of the trustees. If ever tested in Court could the Court so simply conclude the requirements of the trustees were a "sham" when clearly the trustees (as owners of the aircraft) are legally entitled to enforce their SOPs and ban a pilot from flying the aircraft at any point in time. In other words can you so simply argue that the "operational controller" is the monkey that manipulates the stick.

[421C]

Within the GA community it is usual for N reg aircraft to be owned by an off shore trust to meet the FAA requirements. There is no doubt under trust law the trustees are the owner of the aircraft
Agreed


Also it is usual under the terms of the trust agreement for the trustees to authorise certain pilots to operate the aircraft, but I am interested whether this constitutes "operational control".
I believe it does. That's exactly what trust agreements do. They retain legal ownership within the trust and a 3rd party (ie. the trust beneficiary) operates the aircraft.

The operator (in this case the trustees) may (and often do) lay down a whole series of requirements which must be met before a pilot can operate their aircraft; moreover these requirements will and do change. I dont entirely follow the fact that the pilot decides the destination of the aircraft in itself constitutes "operational control".
In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.

If ever tested in Court could the Court so simply conclude the requirements of the trustees were a "sham" when clearly the trustees (as owners of the aircraft) are legally entitled to enforce their SOPs and ban a pilot from flying the aircraft at any point in time It's not about the requirements of the trustees or showing them to be a "sham". It's about who exercises practical, day-to-day operational control of the aircraft (within the bounds permitted by the owner and insurers etc).

After all where ever the pilot may or may not decide to go is irrelevant if he has not complied with the operational requirments of the trustees Of course it's relevant, if the normal understanding of what constitutes operational control is deciding where and when the aircraft flies, again, within the constraints that may be imposed by the owner and insurers.



brgds
421C

[mm_flynn]

421C

It must then be easy to set up an "operator" in say Jersey, who leases the a/c out.


As a further point, on the GAR form they seek to know who the 'Owner/Operator' is and they specifically reference this as Not the Pilot. In the case of a trust or corporate aircraft what is the actual legal definition of 'The Operator' and is it consistent for various elements of the European Governments?

How does renting from a flying club (where I am pretty sure the flying club is the operator) differ from renting from a Jersey based small flying club (serving only 3 or 4 individuals).


I find this subject 'amusing' (in a shaking head in amazement way).

We are going to have a situation where European Residents will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft (the EASA licence) , along with the licence which does (the FAA licence) inorder to legally operate in Europe (but not outside Europe). However, non-European Residents will only require one document to legally operate (The FAA licence).

(The above assumes the NAAs continue to exist and are the agents that issue the EASA licences and hence the long standing FAA position that, for example, a Dutch issued licence is only valid for an N-reg in the Netherlands will continue to be true)

[IO540]

We are going to have a situation where European Residents will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft

That's the most brilliant observation to date :ok:

[mm_flynn]

As a follow on, the UK ANO definition of Operator is
Subject to paragraph (4), references in this Order to the operator of an aircraft are, for
the purposes of the application of any provision of this Order in relation to any
particular aircraft, references to the person who at the relevant time has the
management of that aircraft.
(4) For the purposes of the application of any provision in Part III of this Order, when by
virtue of any charter or other agreement for the hire or loan of an aircraft a person
other than an air transport undertaking or an aerial work undertaking has the
management of that aircraft for a period not exceeding 14 days, paragraph (3) shall
have effect as if that agreement had not been entered into.

And I don't quite understand why an aircraft management company located in IOM is not the operator of an aircraft.

On the other hand, I suspect 421C is right that it will just be easier for most of us to just sit the exams get a bit of extra flight training (which can be good value) and be done with it.

[Pace]

We are going to have a situation where European Residents will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft (the EASA licence) , along with the licence which does (the FAA licence) inorder to legally operate in Europe (but not outside Europe). However, non-European Residents will only require one document to legally operate (The FAA licence).

I have changed some words to show how prejudiced such a move would be and would be shot to bits in the European courts on discrimination! changed bits in red.
and we havent even started on the civil liberty laws.

We are going to have a situation where BLACK PEOPLE will be required to have a licence which doesn't legally allow them to operate the aircraft (the EASA licence) , along with the licence which does (the FAA licence) inorder to legally operate in Europe (but not outside Europe). However, WHITE PEOPLE will only require one document to legally operate (The FAA licence).

[S-Works]

Nice try Pace!!! I can see where you are coming from but it's not the same.

However if you want to launch the test case I am right behind you!

[IO540]

It's an interesting one. I wonder if any lawyers here can input?

Curiously the 2005 DfT proposal would have been solidly covered by Crown Immunity.

The EASA proposals are drawn up by amateurs, occassionally with legal support, but it seems evident that nobody takes the wider legal view at that stage. For example, ICAO compliance would have required the use of "national" while EASA has used "resident" which is a completely different concept and is in breach of ICAO provisions giving members states jurisdiction within their own airspace.

[Pace]

If I hold an FAA ATP and fly a business jet from which I earn my income and have legally done so for years I am protected in Law.

My Licence is the same as a US citizen. If discriminatory (which they are) laws are put into place which unfairly prejudice my ability to carry out my means of employment those laws can be challenged on a number of counts especially in the Eurpean Courts of human rights.

To say an American can fly in European airspace in a N reg aircraft on an FAA ATP But as a resident of Europe I am barred from doing so in the same aircraft with the same licences is without doubt PREJUDICE.

The fact that to convert that licence would cost me an awful lot of money and time is another issue.

The fact that the time required would take between 6 months and 2 years would mean that I would be unemployable for that period, would loose my job and legal livelyhood doing something which has been legal for decades and through no fault of my own.

If there are NO issues to answer in the European courts then what are ?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.



I dont see that is relevant. Lots of groups lay down operating conditions. the engine manufacturer lays down conditions on how the engine should be operated otherwise their warranty is void, the CAA lays down conditions which if not complied with would result in an offence having being commmitted etc, but no one would argue they are the operators. On the other hand I think the man on the number 7 omnibus would hazard that if the owners are laying down conditions that the pilot is required to comply with they are indeed the operators. Who does Joe think operates his flight to the Costas - the pilot or Sleezyjet? Who is he going after when it doesnt run on time, or the hostie spills coffee in his lap, or the pilot is rude to the passengers - not the pilot, but Sleezyjet, it is they that are perceived to be the aircraft operators.


Of course it's relevant, if the normal understanding of what constitutes operational control is deciding where and when the aircraft flies, again, within the constraints that may be imposed by the owner and insurers.


I know I am playing devils advocate but Courts rarely consider one factor in determing a matter such as this. Are you an employee? HMRC might like to have you believe that if you work in someone's office from 9 to 5 then you are; the Courts see the matter quite differently and consider a raft of factors. I find it very hard top believe that simply because it is the pilot that determines the flight will go from Blackbushe to Southend that makes him the oeprator.

Who is the operator if the trustees inform four of the authorised pilots the shop has completed the service - would one of them please go fetch the aircraft back to its base?

If EASA intended that the pilot was for the purposes of the legislation the operator then why not use the word the "commander" shall hold an EASA FCL regardless of the state of origin of the aircraft for flights within the community unless .. .. .. Simple.

I just cant help thinking there is more to this or we are dealing with a complete bunch of amateurs.

As to FAA pilots converting their licences while it doesnt matter to me I cant help thinking those that say this are the very ones who dont need to do so - so their is an element of smugness. Stop being smug for a moment and ask yourself if you had been happily operating in Europe for the past ten years on your FAA IR would you really want to sit x exams and take another flight test, which even the most skilled of us recognise can be a bit of a lottery?

Actually I have some symphathy for EASA wanting their residents to fall directly under their authority. However if this is really what they wished to achieve then they should have proposed a reasonable method for existing pilots to convert their licences and addressed the dreadful state of affairs in Europe where pilots feel compelled to follow to the FAA route in order to obtain an IR.

[S-Works]

The fact that the time required would take between 6 months and 2 years would mean that I would be unemployable for that period, would loose my job and legal livelyhood doing something which has been legal for decades and through no fault of my own

Which is why they have allowed a validation of your FAA ATP for a year and then a further extension should it be required in order to allow enough time for you to continue to work and convert to an EASA licence.

So how is that discriminatory?

[Pace]

Which is why they have allowed a validation of your FAA ATP for a year and then a further extension should it be required in order to allow enough time for you to continue to work and convert to an EASA licence.

So how is that discriminatory?

Bose what is required to validate the FAA ATP :rolleyes: Can I nip into central london and get it done this afternoon at some office?

On the discriminatory bit why dont Non EEC residents have to validate their licences too? same licence same plane?

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, no offence but you really should make an effort to and read this stuff as it clearly effects you.

When EASA take over there is a process whereby non EASA licence holders will be able to seek a 1 year validation. This validation can be further extended by the NAA to allow further opportunity to complete conversion training.

Non EEC residents don't have to validate as they are not resident!! If you choose to become an EEC resident then like it or not you become subject to the applicable rules and they have rightly or wrongly decided that those they have jurisdiction over will abide by a set of standards.

Apparently this is how democracy works....... I don't like it any better than you, just playing devils advocate.

[Pace]

Pace, no offence but you really should make an effort to and read this stuff as it clearly effects you

Dont want to waste time reading stuff which will never happen and will have to be re written :) Have to ration my mental energy ;)
Bose being serious as I do on rare occasions like to add a touch of humour into my posts.

The whole lot although eloquently written stinks of discrimination. How can you require pilots flying aircraft on another states licences and reg to comply with European regs.
If an American pilot flies in European airspace and is not required to comply then no matter how you wrap it up its discriminating against Eurpean pilots flying on the same FAA licences. Those EASA licences have no basis on an N reg aircraft.

Put it another way if an American pilot is legally qualified to fly and is FAA approved type rated on the said N reg aircraft and then legally flies into European airspace you are saying that purely on his race the European pilot has to hold licences which are irrelevant to the aircraft he is flying? That is back door discrimination with no basis to the aircraft or licences held. What will they do next require EASA approved type ratings EASA approved avionic fits etc the whole thing is ridiculous.

Wish we had some legal expert in this forum.


Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, the relevance is not around the aircraft it is around a set of standards that the Europeans have decided that their citizens will meet when operating any aircraft. You live in Europe, you abide by their rules. You live in the US you abide by theirs. They have been clever enough to ensure that they don't penalise visitors to the great country of europe by honouring ICAO agreements but those agreements don't have to extend to it's residents.

Thats not discrimination it is politics. Stinks I know.

[Contacttower]

To be honest, as a someone who just seeks a JAR PPL/IR I'm not going to get too worked up about this. Spoke to GTS at Bournemouth recently about doing the ground school and they said that since I already hold an ICAO IR then I wouldn't even have to attend any of the consolidation days provided I completed the distance learning to the required standard, I could then just go and pass the exams at Gatwick without ever having sat in a classroom. I think I'll probably do the exams in two sessions and since we still have a bit of time before EASA FCL comes in there's no rush.

15hrs conversion is a bit of drag but in reality I could do that in a week or two sometime next summer when I have the time...not really a bit deal.

PS I'm sorry if anyone else is upset at me playing this down...;)

[Fuji Abound]

Hmm, I am still not convinced that the pilot is the operator. If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.

FWIW I was chatting to a barrister mate of mine today who has a passing interest. I emailed him the relevant proposed regulations and he was of the same opinion.

It seems far more likely to me EASA are after owner operator pilots who are resident in the EU.

I do however think that pilots who own their aircraft via a trust, are UK resident and have not ensured they are operating in accordance with SOPs laid down by their trustees could be vunerable.

[mm_flynn]

If an American pilot flies in European airspace and is not required to comply then no matter how you wrap it up its discriminating against European pilots flying on the same FAA licences. Those EASA licences have no basis on an N reg aircraft.
....

Wish we had some legal expert in this forum.


Pace

I am not a legal expert, but there is an extensive and legislatively supported tradition of discrimination based on residence and citizenship.

For example,

people who are not citizen of the EU do not have an absolute right to live here as compared to European citizen who do.
generally residents are taxed but visitors are not (I know this one is much more complicated)
visitors to the EU are generally not allowed to get a job but citizens are allowed to work.
Citizens go through the short queue at immigration and visitors go through the long one
the duty free allowances are different for residents and visitors


The list goes on.

It is somewhat unusual for a democracy to treat its citizens and residents adversely to visitors, but this is Europe.


Fuji,

The question of who is or is not an operator and does the structure mean the pilot does or does not need an EASA licence could provide weeks of entertainment during a ramp check or an insurance renewal.

I can easily imagine the regulators noticing and providing detail extra regs, equally, it would be typical for them to totally blow it and open a gapping whole (as they so often do in tax and other matters).


Related to the general thread, does anyone know when the FCL.008 output surfaces from the EASA process?

[421C]

Hmm, I am still not convinced that the pilot is the operator. If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.


Of course the pilot isn't by definition the operator -if, for example, the airplane is owned by a company who use it for corporate transport and the pilot is paid to fly it under the direction of the decision-makers in the company who determine where and when it should fly.


If he is not then I suspect if the operator is an off shore trust or an off shore company then the pilots will be free to continue as they always have.

The operator is the person or entity having operational control - eg. where and when the aircraft flies.
The corporate aircraft and paid pilot is a perfect example where the owner is the operator and the pilot is not.

However, in any conventional private GA N-reg arrangement, where an individual is a US trust beneficiary for what is essentially his private airplane that he flies, he is the operator.

It seems far more likely to me EASA are after owner operator pilots who are resident in the EU
Exactly. THe ownership is not relevant, it is the residency of the operator is. The distinction is important because a US company (the operator) could hire a European pilot to fly their aircraft in Europe. No problem, since the Operator is not EU resident. Another example is a non-EU airline with crew resident in Europe. No problem.

I do however think that pilots who own their aircraft via a trust, are UK resident and have not ensured they are operating in accordance with SOPs liad down by their trustees could be vunerable.
I am sorry Fuji, this is just clutching at a rather delusional straw. The idea that if your Trust publishes some SOPs (does any Trust do this?) that somehow obviates you from being the Operator is silly.


In this sentence, replace the trustees with the insurers. They also lay down all sorts of requirements which can change. Does that mean the insurers are the operator? Of course not.

I dont see that is relevant. Lots of groups lay down operating conditions. the engine manufacturer lays down conditions on how the engine should be operated otherwise their warranty is void, the CAA lays down conditions which if not complied with would result in an offence having being commmitted etc, but no one would argue they are the operators. On the other hand I think the man on the number 7 omnibus would hazard that if the owners are laying down conditions that the pilot is required to comply with they are indeed the operators. Who does Joe think operates his flight to the Costas - the pilot or Sleezyjet? Who is he going after when it doesnt run on time, or the hostie spills coffee in his lap, or the pilot is rude to the passengers - not the pilot, but Sleezyjet, it is they that are perceived to be the aircraft operators


But that is exactly my point. You suggest since the Trust lays down operating conditions, it (and not the private pilot who is the beneficiary and who uses the plane at his discretion for his purposes) is the operator. The trust is no more the operator by virtue of the fact it may lay down some operating conditions than the insurers, the CAA or the engine/airframe manufacturers are. The operator is the one who decides where and when it flies.

If that decision is made by someone in Delaware, what exactly is the point of having "overcome" the EASA regulations by losing the ability to fly your airplane where you want?

Of course the airline is the operator in your Easyjet example. The pilots fly to a schedule assigned to them by the operator (the airline). So fine, if you have someone in Delaware tell you where to fly your airplane, they indeed will be the operator. But what is the point of that? OTOH, if that were a paper exercise, masking that the European pilot was really the one deciding, then such a sham wouldn't stand up 5mins in court. You know and I know.

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

421C - I think you have muddled up your quotes - not that it matters.

Fair enough, but I think for the time being we will have to disagree on this one. I have spent a lot of my professional time involved with trusts as have the legislators!

Distinguishing one trust from another (given both conduct themselves properly) because you dont like the way one trust is operating over another will find very little favour with the Courts, would be perverse and more importantly, it would be very difficult to draft legislation to have this effect.

There is a good analogy. A UK limited company may comprise effectively one person or a thousand. It would be a great idea to tax the individual the same as any other individual but the company with 20 shareholders differently. Good luck.

However, as interesting as the debate, the problem will be whether anyone wants to take a chance on their interpretation of the legisaltion as you say over the ramp checker's interpretation.

It doesnt matter to me as I have said but it will be interesting to see exactly what is intended.

421C - as ever your posts are very interesting and informative, dont misunderstand me, you could well be correct, I am playing devil's advocate.

[421C]

Fuji

This is nothing to do with Trusts and trust law. It is nothing to do with tax law. The issue is not arcane. It is a simple question of who is the Operator of the aircraft (who is making the decisions about where and when it flies)?

The US entity doesn't have to be a Trust or a Company, it could be your Aunt Betty who lives in Tampa.

The point is if Aunt Betty (or the Trust) is the operator, then they tell you when to fly the plane and where. What is the point of that?

If you decide, you are the operator.

If you attempt to mask the latter with the former, any such sham, however elaborate, would be totally vulnerable. Why not just forge your EASA paperwork?

brgds
421C

dont misunderstand me, you could well be correct, I am playing devil's advocate. I absolutely take this discussion in that spirit. If I am being emphatic, it's because I feely strongly that other readers shouldn't be deluded by this "potential loophole". I think it's a very dead end.

[IO540]

Bearing in mind that this proposal is driven wholly by politics of envy, I think that a lot of "target" operators (where the operator does genuinely decide where the plane flies next) will escape this proposal.

A lot of corporate jet operators will meet the non EU resident operator requirement.

These are the most emotionally targetted people. They have the biggest N-reg jets. And they will escape all this.

We have been around this block in 2005. Those operators who had fleets big enough to rotate them (through another country, or through a leasing company) so no single airframe spent > 90 days parked in the UK each year, would have escaped the reg, while the little N-reg people would have been caught up. This would have been completely hopeless in the politics of envy scenario where it is the big shiny stuff you want to target. (Plus you would have needed to keep a "parked hours" logbook, in addition to the usual "flying hours" logbook(s) :ugh: ).

And the permanent number of "genuine" non-EU visitors flying into the EU in N-reg planes will make detection very hard, because a lot of them will be speaking normal English, etc. There is no "proof of residence" piece of paper you can wave at the ramp inspector. That's not how aviation works.

[Wrong Stuff]

Is "who decides where and when the aircraft flies" a significant defining feature of an operator? Sure, with an airline, the airline is the operator, it decides where and when the aircraft flies and the pilot flies the aircraft from A to B. Much the same with a corporate flight department. But with a flying school the operator is the flying school, not the instructor. But the flying school doesn't decide specifically where and when the instructor and pupil will be flying. Within broad guidelines that's left to the discretion of the instructor.

When I used to be in a group, I always considered the group the operator of the aircraft. In a similar manner to a flying school's booking procedure, the group decided who had the plane when and the specifics of the flight were left to the pilot. The operator didn't suddenly change each time the brakes came off. If there is anyone who could validly claim to have separate pilots and operator, it must be group-owners.

Having said that, this operator / pilot thing is a very weak loophole, if it exists at all. It seems a lot of effort just to avoid having to put in a little effort studying something which is mostly fun and interesting. It would take a brave person to risk using it rather than simply getting the proper paperwork.

[S-Works]

Where does this "operator" thing come from? My understanding is the requirement fir the crews to have EASA licences, nothing to do with the operator?

[421C]

It comes from Article 4 of the Basic Regulation. This defines the applicability of the EASA regulations, including FCL. They are applicable to an aircraft "registered in a third country and used .... by an operator established or residing in the Community".

The residency of the operator is the key point. If the Operator is outside the EU, then clearly there can not be a requirement for complying with EASA FCL (eg. a foreign airline or corporate jet flying into the EU), nor can they apply to a foreign operater even if the crew are EU residents (for example, a non-EU airline with crews based in the EU).

So, someone resident in the US can fly their N-reg airplane into Europe. They can even pay an EU resident with FAA certificates only to fly it. But if the operator is resident in the EU, the crew must have EASA FCL licenses. The debate is whether you could consider the US Trust to be the operator of an EU resident's aircraft. If so, the EU resident wouldn't need to comply with EASA FCL. My point is that in the conventional way EU private pilots fly their N-reg airplanes, they (not the Trust legal owner) are the Operator.

brgds
421C

[Pace]

Where does this "operator" thing come from? My understanding is the requirement fir the crews to have EASA licences, nothing to do with the operator?

That begs the question what sort of EASA Licence? I hold an FAA ATP and fly Citations on private jets. What is the minimum required to fly a citation? a basic PPL IR. The fact that I am being paid to fly an N reg is nothing to do with EASA. So at worst all i need to convert isnt my ATP to an ATP but for EASA purposes a PPL IR.

Payments or money earnt are on the FAA ATP.

The whole stupid and sad thing is that EASA are trying to add their own licences whatever they are supposed to be to a foreign reg aircraft and foreign licences that dont require EASA to be legal.

What is the point? There is no sensible point to this whole charade.

Frankly I would be happy to flout EASA and say take me to court with your rubbish so we can ridicule the complete NON SENSE.

They have been clever enough to ensure that they don't penalise visitors to the great country of europe by honouring ICAO agreements but those agreements don't have to extend to it's residents.

You can paint or package this all you want but it is still DISCRIMINATION You almost sound as if you are mouthpiecing the glorification of EASA. Bose the whole thing is a nonsense and if you really believe in protecting pilots interests you wouldnt write stuff as above.

421C
My point is that in the conventional way EU private pilots fly their N-reg airplanes, they (not the Trust legal owner) are the Operator.

I think it would be simple to legally make the operator whoever you want and based wherever you want.

Pace

[421C]

And the permanent number of "genuine" non-EU visitors flying into the EU in N-reg planes will make detection very hard, because a lot of them will be speaking normal English, etc. There is no "proof of residence" piece of paper you can wave at the ramp inspector. That's not how aviation works.


So the Ramp Inspector asks to see your EASA licences. You say "no, I am not an EU resident, I don't need one". Fine, he asks you to sign a declaration to that effect. How much of a Sherlock Holmes will he have to be to question the veracity of someone with a European accent and passport in a light piston airplane claiming to be a non-EU operator or the pilot of a US corporate flight dept? He forwards this to the NAA enforcement team. There will be thousands of NAA officials in Euriope with less work to do after EASA take over, so you can be sure there will be scope for this sort of thing. They decide who they want to chase up. Aviation regs of this sort are trivially easy to enforce, because the administrative paper traill is so easy to follow up - it's not like a dispute over low flying or did you bust the minima. It's a matter of factual record.

...so what happens then when the letter reaches the sensible Trust administrators. You think they will conspire to establish false claims about residency or about who the operators is? No, so then you get the letter from the NAA legal team....

Sorry, I am not writing this because I enjoy it. I just don't think that anyone has anything to gain (except perhaps some false comfort) by deluding themselves that
- EASA's rules on FRA will get not get enacted
- and if even if they do, there will be a big loophole
- and even if there isn't, the regulations will be unenforceable

brgds
421C

[BillieBob]

Where does this "operator" thing come from?Article 4.1(b) states that the Regulation applies to personnel involved in the operation of aircraft "registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community"
So at worst all i need to convert isnt my ATP to an ATP but for EASA purposes a PPL IR.But, to add a MPA type rating to an EASA PPL, you will need to have passed the ATPL exams, so what's the advantage?

[mm_flynn]

421C,

I am struggling a bit on this operator stuff. HMRC on the GAR specifically require details on the operator and not the pilot (so the club, school, owner, is listed).

The ANO has a large number of technical requirements on the operator that are unlikely to be met by the average group pilot.

If I let someone fly my airplane I wouldn't expect to give them access to my aircraft logs for example. I accept that for a single beneficial owner, they are the operator, owner and pilot. However, in groups just because someone is flying the plane doesn't appear to make them the operator.

It would be even less logical if a corporate entity with directors handling separate aspects would be deemed to have each director be personally an operator rather than the corporate entity as the operator.

For someone like Pace (I assume flying some company's N-reg jet) it must either truly be an American controlled company or owned by an entity which could easily establish it's operating essence as a non EU based US Person.

I have struggled to find a very firm definition of what constitutes an operator (other than in The absence of an entity that acts as the manage, it is the pilot)



----------
On your example, I don't think anyone has suggested saying one is not a EU resident/citizen. However, they are saying the operator is not located in the EU (the operator being the owner, policy setter, etc who has rented the aircraft to the pilot).

[Pace]

But, to add a MPA type rating to an EASA PPL, you will need to have passed the ATPL exams, so what's the advantage?

So what EASA are proposing is that you hold a type rating as well as licences that are not valid or legal or hold any relevance on the aircraft you will be flying?

NON SENSE Roll on the courts ;)

Pace

[421C]

So at worst all i need to convert isnt my ATP to an ATP but for EASA purposes a PPL IR. But, to add a MPA type rating to an EASA PPL, you will need to have passed the ATPL exams, so what's the advantage?


From Article 7.4 of the latest FCL Draft


Aeroplane or helicopter type ratings may be issued to holders of Part-FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates that comply with the requirements for the issue of those ratings established by a third country.
Such ratings will be restricted to aircraft registered in that third country.

I interpret this as meaning that whilst someone in Pace's position will need an EASA licence and IR, the Type Rating may be added purely on the basis of the 3rd country TR.

However, the Basic Regulation says you have to comply with all the EASA regs, it doesn't say you just have to get a PPL. If you want to get paid in an operation requiring compliance with EASA FCL, you will need an EASA CPL. In practice, this means the ATPL exams, since the sum of the CPL and IR exams is probably a bit more work.

brgds
421C

[Pace]

you will need an EASA CPL

421C but this is my arguemnt! An EASA CPL is not recognised on an FAA aircraft which is under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Money recieved is legally done so under the jurisdiction of the FAA.
Holding licences or ratings which are not legally valid which EASA ones would not be are a non sense
REQUIREMENTS which are made by EASA in a discriminatory way are flawed in two ways.
Firstly the licences hold no validity on the aircraft they are being used on and are not under the jurisdiction of EASA regarding that aircraft.
Secondly discriminating against one group of people against others is itself illegal.
The lawyers would have a field day

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

421C


It is a simple question of who is the Operator of the aircraft (who is making the decisions about where and when it flies)?



I think you have convinced yourself what the word "operator" means. If it means "pilot" or "crew" (much as Bose suggests) why didnt the draughtsman use those words?

When you are ramp checked with your European passport and level 6 Cockney you simply point out you are not the operator - the operator is the owner, Jersey Turboprops, who, if you care to check the FAA register, you will also discover is the recorded owner. It is indeed quite possible that you as pilot might not have any financial interest in the aircraft what so ever - I know of a number of N reg groups that operate in exactly this way. You will also discover Jersey Turboprops is the insured party, that all the invoices for the aircraft, its maintenance, parking, landing fees, etc are made out to and paid by Jersey Turboprops. You will discover that in the event of a third party claim against the operator, the claim will be brought against the trust and it will be the trusts insurers who will settle the claim. I know of no owner that would place themselves in this situation unless they had operational control of the aircraft. The insurance company would not accept invoices for parking. A hire purchase company would not pay invoices for maintenance.

In the event the NAA brings a prosecution, the prosecution would have to be processed in Court against the pilot who would claim he was not the operator of the aircraft and would doubtless draw comparison with other aircraft operated by American companies in European airspace crewed by non EASA bearing pilots.

I would rather be acting for the pilot at the moment than the NAA. I think a Court would take a lot of convincing that our hapless pilot who rented the aircraft from a Jersey trust, who was not responsible for any of the costs associated with the aircraft and was required to comply with the trusts operating procedures was the owner and not a mere pilot.

For those reasons I dont believe the question is as simple as you make out. I would be asking the Court if the legislation was intended to refer to the pilot / crew / commander why those simple words were not used, and I would ask the Court to consider in the absence of a clear definition to whom the term operator would commonly refer.

I can think of one particular jet where the owner is a Swiss corporation. They purchased the aircraft, pay all the bills, contract the maintenance company etc. The aircraft is based in the UK. A company in the UK(unconnected with the Swiss corporation) solicits business and arranges charters. They tell the crew when and where to take the aircraft. So - who is the operator - the crew, the UK charter company or the Swiss corporation?

[IO540]

It is actually a very good point that the licenses EASA is apparently requiring would not be legal by State of Registry rules (e.g. FAA 61.3) to fly the same aircraft. So on what basis will EASA determine what EASA licenses are required?

It is a bit like proposing maintenance oversight. A Part M company, with no FAA approvals or FAA qualified individuals, has to legal way to generate a release to service (or actually perform any task whatsoever) on the airframe or maintenance documents relating to it. So what exactly will they be doing??? Apart from merely asking for a cheque. In this I am referring to the latest proposal for oversight of ME TPs and jets.

With ICAO, you can't have it both ways.

EASA is entitled to require EU citizens (not residents) to wear pink underpants in EU airspace, but they have not published such a clear proposal.

[421C]

I think you have convinced yourself what the word "operator" means. If it means "pilot" or "crew" (much as Bose suggests) why didnt the draughtsman use those words?

No, I wrote earier "of course the pilot isn't by definition the operator". It's just that in the case most of us on this private forum are concerned with, that of European private pilots operating FRA, the operator is often also the pilot. That's certainly the case with all the piston N-regs I know - the operator is an EU resident individual (or group of individuals).

In the event the NAA brings a prosecution, the prosecution would have to be processed in Court against the pilot who would claim he was not the operator of the aircraft and would doubtless draw comparison with other aircraft operated by American companies in European airspace crewed by non EASA bearing pilots.

I would rather be acting for the pilot at the moment than the NAA. I think a Court would take a lot of convincing that our hapless pilot who rented the aircraft from a Jersey trust, who was not responsible for any of the costs associated with the aircraft and was required to comply with the trusts operating procedures was the owner and not a mere pilot.

First - the comparison with the US company. The US company is a bona fide business, which incidentally flies an aircraft for business transport. The aircraft costs are funded by the operating activities of the business. The crew are directed where and when to fly by the appropriate chain of management and decision-making.

Jersey Turboprops is what? A shell company which administers an airplane. Some EU residents fly that airplane. Who funds Jersey Turboprops? Oh, that same group of pilots. Now that's a bit different from the US corporate example you raised in court (I presume the US corporate pilots are paid to fly rather than the other way around). Who controls, as ulitmate beneficiary, Jersey Turboprops? Oh, the same group of EU pilots. Again, probably not a cast-iron analogy with the US corporate example. "So Mr Fuji", the court asks, "your client is amongst a group of individuals who are the legal beneficiary owners of the aircraft and the trust. They fund it. Jersey Turboprops has no evident purpose other than to act as an offshore shell for the administration of this aircraft on behalf of EU residents who are collectively its operators".....good luck in court.....

I can think of one particular jet where the owner is a Swiss corporation. They purchased the aircraft, pay all the bills, contract the maintenance company etc. The aircraft is based in the UK. A company in the UK(unconnected with the Swiss corporation) solicits business and arranges charters. They tell the crew when and where to take the aircraft. So - who is the operator - the crew, the UK charter company or the Swiss corporation? Easy. Whoever has the AOC. Your example isn't specific enough. The Operator could be the UK business wet leasing from the Swiss, or it could be the Swiss using the UK business as an agent. What does it matter? We are talking about Joe Pilot and his UK based N-reg Cirrus or whatever.

Interesting debate which, as is occassionally the case, I must stop participating in before my wife smashes my laptop over my head.

No-one will really know I guess until this is tested in case law. Good luck to anyone who thinks the "operator loophole" is a safe and robust construct.....

[421C]

It is actually a very good point that the licenses EASA is apparently requiring would not be legal by State of Registry rules (e.g. FAA 61.3) to fly the same aircraft.
What do you mean "would not be legal"? Part 61 tells you about the requirements and privileges of US pilot certificates. Where does it say you may not also hold an EASA certificate?

Part 91.703 goes on to say (my underline)
(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
.......
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force"

So on what basis will EASA determine what EASA licenses are required?
Err, on the basis of the EU law already enacted, that Operators of FRA resident in the EU must comply with EASA regs.

brgds
421C

[Pace]

No-one will really know I guess until this is tested in case law. Good luck to anyone who thinks the "operator loophole" is a safe and robust construct.....

421C

The biggest flaw with what EASA are attempting is that they are trying to legislate on pilot requirements on aircraft where EASA licences have no Bearing.
I am licenced by the FAA to Fly FAA aircraft around the world there are ICAO Rights to do so and have done so to faraway places like the USA, South Africa and the far East.

Just to show you how discriminatory this is I have ferried before. I could accept employment as a European Pilot to ferry a jet from the USA to say Thailand. I would be denied that income by the fact that I could no longer fly over Europe based soley on on my nationality it could read colour or creed.

EASA are demanding that I hold licenses to fly an aircraft that they hold no jurisdiction over. Infact to use EASA licences to do so would in itself be illegal.
That begs the question what licences could they require me to hold to fly a private N reg Jet?

So it again comes down to blatant discrimination which thankfully are well covered in our European Courts.

They are in reality saying that I must hold licences which are illegal on an aircraft I am fully entitled to fly hold no bearing on that aircraft and for NO other reason than I am European My equal Brothers in America are allowed to fly in European airspace but I am not. THAT IS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION.

I then ask the question what would their arguement be in court for attempting to instigate these requirements? Think about it.

This is another flawed attempt by some EASA pen pusher in an office who hasnt really thought out what he is attempting to do.

Such a move is so flawed and riddled it would not hold up in the courts.

Pace

[421C]

EASA are demanding that I hold licenses to fly an aircraft that they hold no jurisdiction over. Infact to use EASA licences to do so would in itself be illegal

They do have jurisdiction over EU operators. It is not illegal to hold an EASA licence in addition to an FAA one when flying an N-reg airplane.

I am licenced by the FAA to Fly FAA aircraft around the world there are ICAO Rights to do so.
I haven't read my ICAO for a while, but the rights which are enshrined in treaty are relatively narrow, and many apply to CAT rather than GA, and also concern overflight and tech stops. There is nothing in ICAO which prevents a particular country imposing whatever requirements it wants on its domestic operators. In fact, (AFAIK) an ICAO country is entitled to deny its citizens the right to exercise the privileges of another countries pilot qualifications in its own airspace.


So it again comes down to blatant discrimination which thankfully are well covered in our European Courts.

They are in reality saying that I must hold licences which are illegal on an aircraft I am fully entitled to fly hold no bearing on that aircraft and for NO other reason than I am European My equal Brothers in America are allowed to fly in European airspace but I am not

I absolutely understand your intense frustration that the profession you have been pursuing under the excellent and safe regulation of the FAA system should be burdened with this nonsense. But, I hate to say it, this "discrimination" idea is a lost cause. There are a vast number of regulations which 'discriminate' between the non-EU resident professional and the resident. The obvious example being doctors, lawyers, accountants, but also, at a more trivial level, car drivers and boat skippers. Aviation, of course, is different to the extent that it's inherent that a US pilot would operate a trip into Europe (and vice-versa) in a way that, for example, a Doctor wouldn't find himself treating patients cross-border. But the EASA regs are not regulating US pilots per se, or US operators. They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.

The principle that an EU operator should abide by EU regulations is not going to collapse under some human rights legal case. The entire EU system is built upon a vast edifice of EU regulations....

Vent your frustration here amongst fellow pilots by all means, but I'd be signing up for one of those JAA ATPL theory courses at the same time....

brgds
421C

[IO540]

My point was that an EASA license is probably not going to meet state of registry requirements i.e. 61.3.

For example an EASA license issued in Germany will be good for an N-reg in German airspace but won't be any good for the same N-reg in UK airspace. There are two FAA OCC opinions out on this already so I consider this old chestnut done and dusted.

The EU is not doing anything illegal requiring this, in the same way as it would not be illegal to require pilots to wear pink underpants while in EU airspace, but it is bizzare that licenses will have to be obtained which are simply inappropriate for the aircraft under ICAO (state of registry) requirements.

They may as well require the pilot to become a chartered accountant... it's about as relevant.

[Pace]

They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.


421C The obvious would be an IOM with operating company based there in some form or other?
But regulating operators is very different to requiring pilots to hold licences that bear no relevance to the aircraft being flown and which the pilot is already fully licenced to fly.
All I know is this has been attempted many times before and has fallen flat on legalities I see no reason why this should be any different.
I am NO lawyer and I presume neither are you so we are all guessing to a certain extent.
I cannot see your comparisons quoted above as an EASA licence cannot in law be relevant to an FAA aircraft but hey ho I hope you are not correct as this would be another example of NON SENSE politics. Did I read that the UK government had earmarked 130 UK quangos for obliteration pity EASA was not got rid of as nearly happened for its equally stupid attempts before.

Addendum

I have a co pilot who holds FAA licences and an SIC who joined me from meeting up in these forums and is now a very good friend.
His concen is that he went the FAA way because he failed his JAA class 1 medical on his eyesight but passed the FAA medical does anyone know what his position would be if this rubbish hits the light of day.

Pace

[S-Works]

For example an EASA license issued in Germany will be good for an N-reg in German airspace but won't be any good for the same N-reg in UK airspace. There are two FAA OCC opinions out on this already so I consider this old chestnut done and dusted.

Nope. JAA licences were licences issued by NAA in accordance with a set of rules. If you followed the rules to the letter you were a member of the mutually recognised club but nonetheless each licence had a separate state of issue.

An EASA licence will be a single EUROPEAN licence subject to a single European equivalent of the ANO. Very much in the same was as an FAA certificate is federal certificate instead of a state certificate.

So a single EASA licence has true European coverage.

It is this very thing that is preventing the adoption of an IMCr as an example, it is either an all or nothing situation and is the reason EASA are able to mandate an EASA licence for operation in it's airspace.

[421C]

IO,
Your post #125 boils down to the fact you think the EASA requirements are silly. Fair enough. I think it's silly too. Doesn't mean it's not happening.

Pace,
The point on medicals is a serious one. The answer is I don't know. It may be that your friend will need to have EASA medicals in order to work for a European operator. I would suggest he gets in touch with a top AME who is close to the process and understands the regs well. These names must float around the pro pilot community. There may be conversion options which are better done asap (again, I simply don't know).

On the plus side, EASA Part-MED has some relaxation of the worst restrictions of JAR Medical regs. However, how these may impact your friend, again, I don't know.

brgds
421C

[englishal]

I'm not worried, it will never happen. We'll still be flying N reg's on FAA certificates for may years to come....

[S-Works]

I'm not worried, it will never happen. We'll still be flying N reg's on FAA certificates for may years to come....

Better pull your head out the sand then and take a look at what is contained in the regulation that ALREADY exists. This is not a consultation....
;)

[youngskywalker]

PACE

I was in the same situation as your colleague and now hold a full JAA Class one medical.

pm me for more info if you wish...

[DLT1939]

On a lighter note, have you seen EASA's mission statement....

"We're not happy till you're not happy."

[Sir George Cayley]

I think the phrase "We're all doomed" seems applicable :ugh:

Sir George Cayley

[mm_flynn]

An EASA licence will be a single EUROPEAN licence subject to a single European equivalent of the ANO. Very much in the same was as an FAA certificate is federal certificate instead of a state certificate.



Is this actually true, the NAAs are going to no longer exist? Or is it that EASA defines the structure and then the States need to pass implementing legislation and operate as the local office for those specific areas EASA has competence over.

I thought it was the second. In which case, it is unlikely to change the FAA's view that the UK is a different state from Germany or from Slovinia.

[Sir George Cayley]

It will hinge on how ICAO view EASA. At the moment each state that is a signatory to the Chicago Convention has a seat on at the Assembly. Memebers of ICAO get to be on the Air Navigation Commission.

EASA want a seat on the ANC but ICAO will only entertain this if all the AN members sub-ordinate to EASA resign.

You already know the answer don't you?

But one day EASA will get a toe hold.

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

Surely the EU has the power to force them to resign?

The EU can now force any member state to adopt any law it drafts (within limits e.g. military matters are outside its remit).

[Cows getting bigger]

Didn't the UK have a referendum on Europe? :rolleyes:

[BillieBob]

Is this actually true, the NAAs are going to no longer exist? Or is it that EASA defines the structure and then the States need to pass implementing legislation and operate as the local office for those specific areas EASA has competence over.EASA sees itself solely as a rulemaking body and considers that it is the function of NAAs to implement and enforce the rules that it makes. The NAAs will, in practical terms, be simply local agencies of EASA, much as the FSDOs are the local agencies of the FAA.

Since the FCL Implementing Rules are being enacted by Regulation, rather than by Directive, there is no need for the UK provincial government to enact implementing legislation. As soon as the enabling Regulation enters into force (currently scheduled for 8 April 2012) it applies in the UK in its entirety. Some (time limited) derogation is permitted in a few areas, mainly concerning the implementation of the new licences (e.g. LAPL, BPL, SPL, etc.).

[robin]

Interestingly, yesterday I received a letter via my MP about the CAA and EASA and the way GA is being affected by legislation originates from EASA.

The writer denies absolutely that they are subordinate to EASA. Actually they deny pretty much everything - GA is not suffering and all is right with the world. :ugh::ugh:

[Justiciar]

There is an awful lot of hot air being generated on this subject, whereas the focus should be on the fact that EASA are doing what the Commission told them not to do, which is reinvent the wheel.

Just to be clear, it is perfectly legal for a state to limit the privileges of a third part licence held by its own nationals. That is in the Treaty. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to apply EU/EASA rules to third country operators established in the EU. Again, I don't think there is anything novel about this. It happens already.

The current PART FCL do not limit the use of third country licences by nationals of the EU flying non EU aircraft, though such rules may appear. These rules are not yet law and there is a need for everyone to put the case as strongly as possible through their MEPs and directly. They impose unnecessary regulation and cost on an industry worth EURO millions to the economy of the EU at a time when growth is faltering. There is no demonstrable benefit from some of the changes, such as the medical requirements. The rules seem to effectively close the door on anyone from a non EU state wishing to visit Europe and fly whilst they are here, which puts them in opposition to almost every other state in the world, which has a temporary validation or conversion process in place.

[Clearedils]

Becoming a very interesting thread now, and agree with IO540 that the Bizjet forum and (some) operators just seem to be ignoring the proposals and some regulations already in force, and the private flyers seem most bothered?

Mainly a reply and follow up to post #76 to #78 (sorry, been away for a while)

@ 421C: I have to disagree with your first statement and partly with your second:
That part applies to G-registered aircraft.
Article 62 of the ANO just states "the flight crew of an aircraft" and
"paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
AND:
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.

"An aircraft" but not "G-registered aircraft" is mentioned and it directly refers to the licences concerned which are discussed in article 61:

Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft
registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
61
A person must not act as a member of the flight crew which must by or under this Order be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:
(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft on a private flight, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or under this Order, and the CAA does not give a direction to the contrary.

"There's nothing in the ANO that stops a foreign-registered aircraft operating in the UK with a paid crew that hold licences from the state of registry only"

ANO Article 223 prohibits foreign registered aircraft to be involved in operations where valuable consideration is given (with the exception of operators operating under the rules of the Chicago convention, such as airlines or AOC holders or other permission holders):

PART 29 PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK BY FOREIGN REGISTERED
AIRCRAFT
Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom:
223 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo unless it complies with paragraph (2) or is exempt from this paragraph under paragraph (3).

(2) This paragraph is complied with if the operator or the charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted a permission by the Secretary of State under this article and any conditions subject to which such permission may be subject are complied with.

(3) An aircraft is exempt from the requirement to comply with paragraph (1) if it is exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24th September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community(a).

(4) No operator or charterer of an aircraft which is required to comply with paragraph (2) may hold itself out as a person who may offer to take on board or discharge any passenger or cargo in the United Kingdom for valuable consideration except in accordance with:
(a) a permission granted under this article; and
(b) any conditions to which such a permission may be subject.

(5) Paragraph (4) does not apply to any person who reasonably believes that they will hold such a permission by the time the relevant flight is made.

I must be missing something here as there are loads of pilots/operators flying foreign reg a/c around where there is valuable consideration involved?

[trevs99uk]

The CAA have this on there website. At

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&ts_EuropeanLegislation_ExpectedEffectOnUKPilots_Sept2010.pdf

5. Non-EU licences - Validations and conversions
5.1 As proposed the Part-FCL regulation will make provision for the temporary validation of licences issued outside of the territory that is subject to EASA regulations - (i.e. outside of the EU Member States and those countries that have signed agreements to be bound by the EASA regulations and implementing rules). An example would be the holder of a licence issued by the FAA wanting to fly an aircraft registered in the UK. There are also proposed
Page 7 of 13
provisions for the conversion of such licences - i.e. their replacement with EASA licences. These proposed provisions are similar to those that have been applied under JAR-FCL. However, in the case of validations the regulation as currently proposed introduces a significant change in that a licence holder may only obtain a validation once, and it will be time limited.
5.2 The proposed validation requirements are set out in Annex III to the regulation for Part-FCL. The general requirements in that Annex that would apply to all validations according to this proposal are:
• the licence to be validated must be compliant with ICAO Annex 1;
• application may only be made to the NAA of the country where the pilot is resident, or where the operator they will fly for has its principal place of business;
• the period of validation will not exceed one year;
• no repeat validations are allowed;
• a validation can be extended once only by the competent authority (NAA) that issued it, to allow time for the pilot to obtain an EASA licence. The extension will be given if the pilot concerned has commenced training for an EASA licence. The period of the extension will not be excessive, taking into account the typical time taken by applicants to obtain the EASA licence that the pilot is training for.
At present, Article 62 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 grants a permanent general validation to all non-UK licence holders to allow them to fly UK-registered aircraft, provided that the flight is for private purposes. The European legislation will overturn this (and the ANO will be amended to avoid causing confusion). If adopted as currently proposed, Part-FCL will require the holder of a licence issued by a non-EASA country to have an individual validation issued by the appropriate EASA member NAA. However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

[bookworm]

@ 421C: I have to disagree with your first statement and partly with your second:
That part applies to G-registered aircraft.
...
"An aircraft" but not "G-registered aircraft" is mentioned and it directly refers to the licences concerned which are discussed in article 61:

Art 61 requires a licence from the state of registry for a public transport or aerial work flight. If the pilot has such a licence, then Art 61 is satisfied without reference to Art 62.

Art 62 describes the conditions for a foreign licence to be "deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". It is not necessary for a foreign licence to be rendered valid in order to fly a foreign-registered aircraft, only to fly a G-registered aircraft.

[IO540]

trevs99uk

What do you think is the meaning of "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of that PDF?

The CAA appears to be saying that foreign reg pilots will need EASA licenses, but then they go on about Art 62 which as Bookworm correctly says doesn't apply to foreign regs because they are already covered by the State of Registry papers... so which aircraft reg does

However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

apply to?

I find this whole thing totally confusing.

[BillieBob]

The "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of the PDF has nothing to do with aircraft registered in a third country - it is simply pointing out that an EASA licence is not required for Annex II aircraft unless it is a historic or ex-military aircraft or a replica thereof and is being flown for public transport or aerial work.

The only reference that I can find to Article 62 is in paragraph 5, which deals only with the validation of third country licences to fly EASA registered aircraft. There is nothing in the PDF relevant to the requirements for third country aircraft, which is hardly surprising as it will not be Licensing and Training Standards that has to enforce that aspect of the Regulation.

[englishal]

I can't see anything in these rules that would affect me....i.e. flying an N reg on an FAA certificate. If anything they might award me some sort of IMC replacement IR based upon my IMC which is based upon my FAA IR... ???

[421C]

Clearedils,

"where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo"

This rule relate to the relationship between the operator and the pax/cargo, not the operator and the crew.


brgds
421C

[421C]

so which aircraft reg does

However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

apply to?

It applies to all aircraft registered anywhere. But, the key point is that "validation" is a one-time process, valid for 12months and still requires some exam passes and a skills test. It is of little practical value except for someone who absolutely needs the extra time to get the EASA licences.

brgds
421C

[BillieBob]

I can't see anything in these rules that would affect me....i.e. flying an N reg on an FAA certificate. If anything they might award me some sort of IMC replacement IR based upon my IMC which is based upon my FAA IR... ???It depends who is considered to be the operator of the aircraft and whether they have their main place of business in or are resident in the EU. If we are talking about the private owner of an 'N' reg aircraft, the assumption is that they are also the 'operator' and, therefore, assuming that they are also resident in the EU, that they will need both an FAA licence and an EASA licence in order to fly that aircraft in EU airspace.

The problem is that EASA has not defined the term 'operation'. It defines 'operator' as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft", which is not a great deal of help. What EASA considers to represent 'operating' an aircraft may well differ from what you or I might think.

[BillieBob]

It applies to all aircraft registered anywhere.No, it doesn't. In the context of para 5 of the PDF it applies only to EASA aircraft.

[IO540]

I recall the 'operator' meaning being debated a while ago, when that doc originally came out.

We seem to have come full circle but nobody seems any wiser.

At least they have dropped the airframe maintenance oversight for SE and ME pistons.

[bookworm]

The problem is that EASA has not defined the term 'operation'. It defines 'operator' as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft", which is not a great deal of help. What EASA considers to represent 'operating' an aircraft may well differ from what you or I might think.

I have a feeling that if challenged to provide a definition, EASA will say that this is up to the courts in the member states to decide!

[Whopity]

A few years ago I recall a pilot appearing in the Stratford Court accused of "operating" an aircraft without a valid C of A. The case was thrown out because there was no definition of "operator". Was it the owner, the club who rented it from him or the person they rented it to who was flying it?

[421C]

No, it doesn't. In the context of para 5 of the PDF it applies only to EASA aircraft.
Para 5 describes the EASA FCL Annex III "Validation" of 3rd country licences. Validations can be used to fly any aircraft requiring compliance with EASA FCL - ie. a UK one, as in the example in para 5, any EU registered one as you say, but also any FRA operated by an EU resident who needs to comply with EASA FCL. At least that's how I read it.

Put another way, I think the (formal or informal?) definition of "EASA aircraft" (as opposed to "EASA-registered aircraft") includes 3rd country aircraft operated within the EU by an EU resident?

brgds
421C

[David Roberts]

See Article 4 of 216/2008 - 'EASA aircraft' though not mentoned as such, but the scope is there.

[Fuji Abound]

"any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft"

Even the definition seems at odds with the operator being the pilot. The pilot can only be a natural person whereas the definition clearly envisages the operator being a trust or a company and also a trust or a company that owns more than one aircraft.

I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator.

It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas but use crew that are domiciled in the EU but capture private pilots who are domiciled in the EU and operate their aircraft through a trust company. If the trust is properly established, operated and is off shore I suspect EASA will have a job to break the trust and convince a court that the trust is a complete sham with its strings being entirely "pulled" by the "owner" who is also the pilot. However I suspect this is the best they could come up with. Not only would it be unpopular, but possibly illegal to legislate against off shore commercial operators, so you are left with trying to find some "artificial" way of distingusiging these from UK residents who own their aircraft via an off shore trust.

[421C]

I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator


You miss an important nuance. I am not, as I have said before, saying that the pilot of an aircraft is automatically the operator under all and any circumstances. Obvioulsy not.

However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)

...then the EU resident pilot or group are likely to be deemed the operators of the aircraft, irrespective of what administration is off-shored to a trust or shell company OR the trust/company will be deemed to be EU resident in practice with its off-shore status simply an avoidance mechanism. Either way, the pilots need EASA licences.



It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas

It's not a "clever bit of word crafting". It's EASA exercising its powers to regulate EU operators but not 3rd country ones. There is an obvious and legitimate difference, however much one disagrees with their intent.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

Can somebody please assemble a clear bit of text, with URLs and supporting logic, which proves that regulations currently proposed or passed into law state that EASA licenses will be required for EU resident N-reg private pilots?

Once I have this, I can pass it by an aviation lawyer.

I think what is happening here is that people are reading little bits of proposals.

[172driver]

However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)

421C I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that you can set up a structure whereby the 'operational control' resides with some non-EU based trust or company. The problem I can see is the closer you get to a watertight structure, the closer you also get to an AOC or other CAT situation.

[IO540]

If this type of rule did become law, it is certain (as bookworm says) that the interpretation would be with the local courts. After all, EASA won't prosecute anybody; it will be up to each local CAA.

The tough bit would not be ramp checks (which will always be meaningless, due to the obvious impossibility of on the spot verification of "residence" etc). It would be validity of one's insurance.

[englishal]

I don't see how one's insurance would be invalid if one were say flying an N reg using an FAA ticket which is a perfectly legal combo....as per United 935 from LHR to LAX.

What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....

[IO540]

Insurance validity requires the flight to be "legal".

I agree the flight would be legal as per ICAO (State of Registry) requirements.

But if e.g. you fly your plane via an airspace which requires the carriage of an ADF (or a pair of pink underpants) but you haven't got an ADF (or pink underpants) then you are not legal in that airspace.

I am not saying that I have bought into this "N-reg threat" but this is how it could work. Each ICAO member has sovereignity within its airspace, which is how e.g. the UK CAA can require the carriage of an ADF for all IFR in CAS, and this is applicable even to an N-reg Cirrus ;)

[mm_flynn]

I don't see how one's insurance would be invalid if one were say flying an N reg using an FAA ticket which is a perfectly legal combo....as per United 935 from LHR to LAX.

What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....

You are missing the point re United. This is a US based company, with the majority of its business in the US, regulated as an AOC (so by definition 'the operator') by the US. It can not possibly be viewed as a shame construct to avoid a residency issue. As 421 has pointed out, it is much less clear the closer one is to a sole beneficial owner situation that a court wouldn't deem the structure as a shame to avoid this particular set of regulations.

The insurance side could be critical. Insurance companies will either be happy to underwrite EU based pilots flying Deleware Trust Company aircraft based in the EU with FAA licences or the will not be happy. It is only when one tries to get insurance that one will know the answer.

Equally, one would need some advice as to the insurer's ability to walk away from a claim even though they were in posession of all material facts based on a post accident view that you should have had an EASA licence. For an insurer that is not based in the EU I would have thought they wouldn't care, one based in the EU could well be made to care. [Note the opinion expressed is worth what you have paid for it]

[421C]

421C I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that you can set up a structure whereby the 'operational control' resides with some non-EU based trust or company. The problem I can see is the closer you get to a watertight structure, the closer you also get to an AOC or other CAT situation.


172Driver,

The problem is as follows:

If genuine operational control resided in the offshore entity, then what on earth is the point of this construct? Presumably this discussion relates to people on the forum who are presently N-reg (trust beneficiary) owner-pilot-operators and their need for EASA FCL licences from 2012.

If you transfer genuine operational control to some Trust lawyer in Delaware, then you no longer have an N-reg airplane you can use in any sensibe manner the way you do presently. If you can continue to do so, then the genuine operational control does not reside with the offshore entity. It's a sham that I believe would collapse in court in minutes. Perhaps one could fraudulently create an edifice of funding and instructions and purpose by which the "offshore operator" instructs you to fly to places that (coincidentally) are where and when you want to fly, but this sort of thing is seems so self-evidently silly and transparent to me that I am surprised anyone would believe, for a moment, it would be robust.


The tough bit would not be ramp checks (which will always be meaningless, due to the obvious impossibility of on the spot verification of "residence" etc).
IO, I'll repeat my previous answer to this point. The ramp check would be trivially easy. "Oh Mr Pilot, you say you don't have EASA FCL qualifications because this aircraft is operated by a non-EU resident. Fair enough, sign this declaration to this effect, and we will follow up at our leisure". It may be impossible to verify the operator and residency on the spot, but it is trivially easy for them to follow-up subsequently. How many "operators" do they have to nail this way for the message to get through? How much of a Sherlock Holmes does the ramp inspector or his back office colleague have to be?

brgds
421C

[IO540]

There isn't and won't be the infrastructure for checking this kind of stuff.

Airport staff and airport police are not that clever or organised.

In most of Europe, the paperwork machine hangs together just enough to ask for a declaration that you and your passengers haven't got tuberculosis.

I think that most proposals which would require a huge amount of new procedures to be deployed Europe-wide, just to catch a small # of private pilots, will be dropped because nobody will have the balls to push it through, into a system which isn't getting paid to do the extra work anyway.

Like that 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days. The detection and enforcement mechanisms would have been rather interesting. No wonder it got dropped. It also had some very easy work-arounds (which I won't publish here).

Insurance would be the principal issue.

[421C]

There is already a standard ramp checking infrastructure and mechanism throughout Europe. The inspection form the CAA use I've seen posted somewhere on the web. You think the NAA staff across Europe who have less rule-making work to do won't be deployed in overseeing EASA regs?

What is the point of this discussion? Are we seriously debating that someone would ignore EASA regs on the basis they were unlikely ever to get caught?

brgds
421C

[Fuji Abound]

421C - well, I think your view will ultimately prevail if the legislation is enacted as curently drafted. It is interesting debating the wriggle room but I think private owner operators using a Delware trust would have to go some not to be caught by the legislation. I think a group where a real effort is made to delegate some of the operational functions to off shore trustees might stand a better chance but I know of few N reg groups, although they do exist.

If the legisaltion is enacted it leaves me wondering how many FAA IR holders will go to the effort of converting their licences and if they do convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.

My guess is this one will ultimately ride on how much of a stink the N reg lobby can muster and whether the FAA has any good reason to wade into the debate.

There are a few EASA changes that come to mind that really do require us pilots to make it quite clear we are not prepared to put up with the impact they will have on GA. These include the potential loss of the IMCr, the dreadful EIR proposals, the inability of ICAO qualified IR holders to convert their licences to EASA IRs, and the loss of national lifetime licences.

Whether us pilots are up to the task I doubt so I guess we can only watch on in dismay.

I dont think any one of us supports these changes or believes they will contribute one iota to safety and in that much EASA will have failed in its prime directive. Shame on those who have more interest in political posturing that safety.

[Pace]

Sorry guys been out of the loop for a few days so trying to catch up. Those who think the courts are there to decide whether something is a sham misjudge what the function of the courts are.

There are many legal setups which are that (shams) already but which cannot be challenged because they tick the legal boxes.

If someone wants to operate through a delaware company by means of a phone call and by doing so the operation ticks the legal box no court is going to say "this is obviously a sham so its illegal". This happens in many other fields perfectly legally.

None of us as far as I know are aviation legal experts so a lot of what we are saying is itself suspect.

More concern is the two camps here. The I am alright jack brigade because I have the relevant licences? (Some of us know some posters especially in the professional pilot forums who fit that bill and take a holier than thou attitude but who achieved their own licenses through shams) The others are people who have spent a lot of money licencing themselves up and have quite legally worked the FAA way in Europe some for decades.

To be told for no genuine reason that sorry mate at a flick of a pen you are no longer legal please find X amount of £1000s of pounds, loose your job and take off 6 months full time study is something which is hard to chew.

As a non lawyer I am pretty sure you cannot do that without recompense or without breaking the EEC human rights laws which are so strong within the EEC.

The only law breaking is by EASA requiring licences (what licences??? That itself is not clear to fly aircraft which are not in their jurisdiction.
Who is fighting our corner against this big brother attitude?

I quote Douglas Bader

" Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" i hope there are not too many fools in our ranks?

Pace

[421C]

Can somebody please assemble a clear bit of text, with URLs and supporting logic, which proves that regulations currently proposed or passed into law state that EASA licenses will be required for EU resident N-reg private pilots?

Bookworm has helpfully done this already, see post #25 in this thread. The reference to Basic Regulation is document (EC) 216/2008 available here:
EASA - Regulations structure (http://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations/regulations-structure.php#BR)


brgds
421C

(corrected in line with BB's post below)

[BillieBob]

The reference to Basic Regulation is document (EC) 214/2008I have made a similar slip in the past - it is actually Regulation (EC) 216/2008.

[englishal]

convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.
One good reason...safety equipment that Europe decides needs X thousand spent generating STCs even though the FAA have allowed it for years.

I just bought an EDM-830 in the US and am having it fitted at the moment. Piece of cake. I dread to think of the hoops and fees under EASA.

[Pace]

(EC) 216/2008.

wasnt this lot concocted at the time EASA was almost disbanded, had its knuckes rapped and told to stop trying to re invent the wheel?

What parts are relevant, what do they actually mean legally and who is fighting to overturn this biggest SHAM of all.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - I am not sure if AOPA is on the trail on this one - they certainly would appear to be with regards the IMCr and EIR.

It might be worth giving them a call and also perhaps AOPA USA would take an interest. Our Euro all things aviation MP Mr Kirkhope (Timothy Kirkhope MEP ? Working for You in the European Parliament (http://www.kirkhope.org.uk/contact.htm)) might also be a good bet.

An old fashion petition would also not do any harm if anyone can be bothered to kick it off. Even EASA might feel they need take note of 5,000 or 10,000 pilots opposed to their proposals.

[Pace]

1.a daily record of happenings, as a diary
2.a record of the transactions of a legislature, club, etc.
3.a daily newspaper: often used in newspaper titles
4.any newspaper or periodical, as one dealing with scientific or professional matters

EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)

It is a daily as in Jour-nal or continuing "thought publications" NOT a regulatory document.

Can someone give a lead to the regulatory document not the journal which doesnt mean much.

Pace

[172driver]

Pace, I think you might find that 'Journal' can have a very official meaning indeed.

[Cathar]

EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)


The EU Official Journal is where the EU publishes its legislation. The fact that 216/2008 is a legislative document is clear from its title if you read it:

REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive
2004/36/EC

Article 70 also gives a clue to this fact:
Article 70
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

And you will note the final sign off after Article 70:

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Strasbourg, 20 February 2008.

For the European Parliament
The President
H.-G. PÖTTERING

For the Council
The President
J. LENARČIČ

[421C]

Official Journal of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/official/index_en.htm)

Official Journal of the European Union
The authoritative source of EU law

[IO540]

Bookworm has helpfully done this already, see post #25 in this thread. The reference to Basic Regulation is document (EC) 216/2008 available here:
EASA - Regulations structure (http://www.easa.europa.eu/regulations/regulations-structure.php#BR)That is thousands of pages. No wonder people are going around in circles.

Reading 216/2008 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF), this doesn't say that N-reg FAA PPL/IR pilots based here will need to get EASA PPL/IRs.

[421C]

You don't have to read the 1000s of pages. You have to read Bookworm's short post which quotes and describes how:


Article 4 of the BR defines the scope of EASA regs to include FRA operated by EU residents
Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion says it applies to the pilots of aircraft defined in Article 4 of the BR
Article 3 of the FCL Draft Opinion says that pilots defined in Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion shall be qualified in accordance with Part FCL and Part Med.
This bundles pilots of EU-registered aircraft and pilots of EU operated FRA into the same bucket. They need EASA Part FCL and Part Med qualifications.

Bookworm posted both the simple text you wanted and the links to the original FCL source. I added the link to the BR source.

The EU law simply isn't constructed in the way you want it to speak to you. It doesn't say specifically that N-reg pilots need EASA IRs, in the same way it doesn't say pilots of EASA-registered aircraft need EASA pilot certficates. The outcome stems from the chain of references Article 4 BR - Article 1 FCL - Article 3 FCL.

Let me put it another way. How could I convince the pilot of a G-registered aircraft that he needs an EASA certificate sometime after 2012? It's exactly the same set of references. He is captured by Article 4 (1) (b) of the BR, and the N-reg guy is captured by Article 4 (1) (c) of the BR.

If you read Part FCL, nowhere does it say "pilots of EASA registered aircraft must have EASA licenses". It refers to aircraft in Article 4 of the BR and the pilots of such aircraft.

brgds
421C

[JW411]

I'm sorry chaps but I just have to throw my little bit in to this argument.

Over the years I have earned:

An FAA ATPR (rated for the DC10)
A CAA (National) ATPL (which keeps my IMC rating current) and
A JAR ATPL

Why don't you just bite the bullet and do your IR with the CAA and get a JAR licence?

I came out of the RAF as a training captain with a Master Green instrument rating and 9,000 hours but none of that meant anything.

I had to take myself to Kidlington and do a very expensive civilian IR in order to get my civilian licence.

If I could do that (as all of us had to) why do you guys think that you are so precious or so very special that you don't have to do what it takes?

Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to beat the system?

Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.

I did.

[Contacttower]

Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.

I'm not worried as such about putting my expertise on the line, although my single needle work would probably be a bit rusty I'd have to admit...

It's the structure of the whole thing that annoys me the most, I've just started the JAA IR ground and I was dismayed to find out the that next exams session that can be booked is in December! Why can you only take the exams every other month at one place in the country? OK if you do ATPLs you can take them at Oxford/Glasgow etc but I don't want to take 7 extra exams that I don't need...:ugh:

I probably will take them in two sittings so that is four months from now before I can start the flight training. For the FAA written I studied for a few weeks and then went and sat the exam at Farnborough, I was told the result before I left (rather than having to wait 10 days :ugh:). It just seems absurd that the process of arranging to take an FAA exam in the UK is easier than to take a JAA one. In a sense it doesn't really matter, I'm not working to a tight timetable but when I start something I like to do it in no more time than is necessary. It's not the volume of material as such that I have a problem with, although a lot does seem irrelevant, it's all this stuff like paying for distance learning, having to pay £60 per exam to sit them plus the time scale just seems ridiculous.

The flight training on the other hand I'm actually quite looking forward to...:)

[youngskywalker]

It's a fair comment, but as this is the 'private flying forum' it follows that most on here just fly for fun, and the ATPL exams just are not relevant or practical for someone who simply wants to be able to access the airways system in a single engine tourer. A more practical solution needs to be found in my opinion. The FAA system, regardless what some people here will tell you, does provide a good level of safety and knowledge for IFR flying in Europe - heck, even I managed to operate an N reg King Air and Turbo Commander in Europe using FAA tickets perfectly safely!

I for one have accepted that this route will inevitably close for European Pilots after 2012 and have started on the painful conversion process, but for a private pilot it's simply inpractical. If I were intending only flying for fun I'm pretty sure I'd probably knock it on the head after 2012 when EASA suck the life out of GA.:(

[Fuji Abound]

Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.



I think you are a million miles from the mark.

I dont believe it has anything to do with putting your expertise on the line. If it did as an FAA IR holder you would take an EASA IR renewal (goodness knows what it will be called) and if you pass, job done. That is sufficient to prove you have maintained the ICAO standard.

In the alternative why dont we devise a system where the typical 10,000 hour ATPL should sit ten exams if he is told by his employer to fly to some tinpot republic, and another ten exams for the republic of Windover, and while we are at it a theory test and a driving test for every country you want to drive a car in.

It is not about proving you can fly to a standard but about jumping through hoops that prove nothing and line the authorities pockets. Many people find the cost of flying privately costly enough without having to fund the regulatory industry; most of the people who post on here fly for pleasure, they dont get paid to fly and it is not their business - which seems so often forgotten.

[Pace]

Why don't you just bite the bullet and do your IR with the CAA and get a JAR licence?

JW411

I can answer that not as an FAA PPL IR but as a FAA ATP type rated and flying as a Captain on said aircraft for a living.

Firstly I have the licences required to fly what I do and that is FAA N reg jets.
What other licences do I actually require to fly N reg Jets? none of the EASA licences are relevant or have any legal place on a N reg Jet so obviously not EASA licences.

Will I be a better pilot for doing an EASA licence NO that is gained by flying my jet in all kinds of weather and destinations around Europe and the world (I have flown long distance ferries too as far away as the far East, south Africa and the USA)

But thats not the point my licences and experience count for almost nothing in this wonderful EASA land.

Sense would dictate at most a differences exam and flight test to convert.
The IR flight test would be fun and a piece of cake, (never failed a flight test yet!) but where does SENSE ever come into EASA land?

But in EASA land NO. 14 exams 6 months full time study and many thousands of £s to achieve what?

I dont want to fly for a European AOC and over 50 i cannot be asked to start again.

I am all for safety but frankly the latest satistics put FAA PART135 ops as safer than EASA AOC ops with FAA corporate Jets on the same safety level as Airlines with AOC a poor third. (check the figures)

So what is all this about and at what point do we in our industry say NO to this big brother organisation who regulate for the sake of regulating at everyone elses expense just to justify their own artificially constructed jobs.

Pace

[421C]

I had to take myself to Kidlington and do a very expensive civilian IR in order to get my civilian licence.

If I could do that (as all of us had to) why do you guys think that you are so precious or so very special that you don't have to do what it takes?

Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to beat the system?

JW,

You have got me agreeing with Fuji for once! On the one hand, you are right, if you have to do the JAA stuff, it's doable. But the issue many of us have is the sheer, dismal, sad pointlessness of European over-regulation as it impacts GA.

You may have been happy doing your IR as a pro, but for GA, the European IR is an irrelevance. There are probably 100,000 non-commercial IR holders in the US. How many people have knuckled down to the JAA PPL/IR? I suspect it's in the order of 1000 across all of Europe in the entire history of JAR-FCL.

Is JAA private operation any safer than the US? No. Is Europe difficult and more special? No. I believe the US has greater extremes of terrain and weather and manages a mix of GA and CAT traffic in super-busy TMAs and airports which is inconceivable in Europe. Does American safety suffer or European safety benefit? No.

The people who suffer aren't just the European (potential) pilots denied reasonable access to 'mainstream' (ie. non- light/sport) GA. The US earns billions of dollars in GA exports and sustains (?) 100,000 jobs through GA. What do we have in the UK below the level of Airbus and military hardware? Our centre of GA manufacturing I guess is the Isle of Wight, making a few Islanders a year and assembling Cirrus kits. It's not just manufacturing. Look around many provincial airports. The GA maintenance and ancilliary industries are often in a few rusting hangars amongst the airport property converted to warehouses and call centres and whatnot. Go to an equivalent US airport and you'll find FBOs and specialist GA companies employing hundreds of people in decent quality jobs.

We manage a "playing field" for CAT which enables a pretty efficient and competitive airline sector. Our lowco model seems comparable to the US - we do not seem short of airlines with funny names flying between obscure provincial towns in Europe. That's a good thing for the industry and for pax. Why can't we have a proportionate regulatory environment for GA? It's beyond me.

I've been writing on this thread to explain the EASA process and rules as best I can. Doesn't mean I like it.

(BTW, although I'm an N-reg man, I've done my JAA IR conversion and IRI. All good fun stuff and great people. But the instructors, examiners and what I learned would have been the same without the overlay of JAA cost and paperwork and approvals and other nonsense. It doesn't take £1000 of 'approved' manuals to learn the theory compared to $20 US books or the excellent handbooks the FAA publish for free. The list is endless.)

[IO540]

I think JW411 is completely correct.

The evidence (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m74/peterh337/ldzd.jpg) overwhelmingly shows N-reg pilots flying trivial missions, mostly in aircraft so poorly maintained they cannot even cross the British Channel, while British-reg pilots fly the really heavy stuff. No wonder N-reg pilots are afraid of having to submit themselves to the proper and correct morally and intellectually superior European standards. Most of them can't even fly as far as Earls Colne, Wolverhampton, Wycombe, or Biggin.

I think it should be harder still, however. The 14 ATPL exams cannot possibly cover the depth of knowledge required of a pilot choosing to take up residence on British soil.

I give up.

That picture, BTW, is played out all over Europe. That is what is driving the regulation.

[Fuji Abound]

421C


You have got me agreeing with Fuji for once!


Actually I think you will find we have agreed twice on this thread alone! :)

I am not sure whether we still disagree on the EIR, I cant remember where that debate ended.

[englishal]

If I wanted to fly a G registered 747 then I would indeed convert my FAA CPL/IR and add an EASA Type Rating.

However all I want to be able to do is fly my N registered Rockwell Commander to France in the cloud when I feel like it. It would be a bit rich to say the least if an American could fly his RC from England to France in the cloud, yet me being a brit couldn't.

Actually I would anyway, I have JAA PPL+IMC which may become an EIR so I think I have covered myself quite well.

[dublinpilot]

Actually I would anyway, I have JAA PPL+IMC which may become an EIR so I think I have covered myself quite well.

Is the EIR still on the agenda? It wasn't in the Flight Crew Licencing proposals issued last month (or at least I couldn't find it). :confused::confused::confused:

When I didn't see it there, I assumed that it had been dropped? :confused::confused::confused:

[IO540]

The committee charged with the "new EASA IR" as well as the EIR has not quite finished yet, AIUI.

Various bits about the "IR" have come out, like a big reduction in the mandatory dual time, and a small reduction in the exam content, and no change on the medical front.

But the EIR remains a mystery (to me) as to how it will fit in with existing ATC practices and expectations. Somebody told me it would always involve a Z (VFR - IFR - VFR) flight plan, in which case I can kind-of understand it, but others close to the job did not mention that.

[JW411]

I'm sorry chaps if I have offended some of you. As usual, I have failed to convey exactly what I mean so let me try again.

Absolutely no one in the flying game (unless they are completely deranged) enjoys spending money and being examined.

What I was trying to explain was that we all end up having to do whatever it takes to get the job done. I did not enjoy spending a lot of money when I came out of the RAF getting an IR which did not really improve upon the skills that I had already been using for 18 years.

BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE.

Without the CAA ATPL I was not going to get a job.

A bit later in my life I was offered a job flying DC-10s in the USA (Part 121) but I had to get an FAA ATR. I did not particularly enjoy the experience.

BUT IT HAD TO BE DONE.

When I came back to flying in Europe, JARs came along and my company insisted that I had to take out a JAR ATPL. You have already guessed what is coming next.

IT HAD TO BE DONE.

I certainly do not wish to decry anyone's license or ability. The CAA license is without doubt the most difficult to get and the process undoubtedly contains more bullsh*t than any of the others (does anyone else remember the lighting requirements of an airship moored at its mast at night with the rudder disabled?).

On the other hand, the FAA license was an absolute breeze. The bullsh*t factor was a lot lower and the FAA attitude towards flying was much more practical.

However, all I was trying to say was that there are a lot of things in life that we have to do to tick the necessary boxes. Let us look at this from a private flyer's position in the UK.

You need to ask yourself a very basic question. Do I need (really need) to have an IR? Perhaps an IMC rating would do? Perhaps I don't really need either?

If an IR is absolutely essential to you and you want to use it on a G-registered aeroplane, then perhaps you should invest in a CAA IR. I know it costs money but that takes me back to the original question "do I really need an IR"?

PERHAPS IT HAS TO BE DONE

The bullsh*t factor might be quite high but I would really not worry about the examiners. I only ever met one CAFU examiner that got up my nose in a major way and I only had to put up with him for one week in the "Tony Angel HS125 simulator" when I was on the IRE course.

The rest of them have been absolutely fine and supportive. (I can even remember one chap telling me not to worry about temporarily busting a limit "I can always choose when to be looking in any particular direction").

So, having parted with a fair amount of dosh, you will have your CAA IR in your hand and it is highly unlikely that you will ever have to fly with a CAFU chap ever again.

Alternatively, you could decide that it would be easier (and cheaper) to do a simpler FAA IR course and then look forward to:

1. Re-registering your machine on to a foreign register.
2. Organising a maintenance organisation to look after your aircraft on the new register.
3. Finding a foreign-qualified IR examiner to do your IR renewal every year.
4. Finding an AME who can issue FAA medicals as well as CAA ones (Mine does).
5. Face the possibility of explaining to a ramp-checker in Albania whose English is somewhat limited that your aircraft is not actually yours but is owned by a trust in Delaware.
6. Constantly trying to stay one step ahead of the inevitable outcome of EASA banning foreign registered aircraft.

To me, such an option is ridiculous and has absolutely no future for you will never beat the system in the final analysis.

SOMETIMES IT HAS TO BE DONE

I bit the bullet and got every license (and several validations) that I needed. I didn't like it but it had to be done. I am sure that it was the cheaper option in the end.

Was it Confucius who said "if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it"!

[IO540]

Well, yes, right now there are very few reasons for doing the FAA IR unless you already own an N-reg plane.

But then you have powerful reasons for staying with it:

A transfer to G is going to cost between £5000 and £10000 and that is if nothing goes wrong.

Especially if it is a "nice" plane, and the majority of N-reg planes are indeed "nice" (which probably doesn't help the politics of envy angle...).

And EASA is not currently proposing kicking out N-reg airframes (it would be extremely hard to do, as others have found before) which is yet another reason why continued N-reg operation is worth examining closely.

We shall see what happens.

Whenever I have acted out of fear, I always lost money :)

[Pace]

Whenever I have acted out of fear, I always lost money

There is anotherv saying which ties in with yours " Descisions made through fear are always wrong those made through your instincts are always right.
The tricky bit is working out what are your instincts and what are your fears"

JW11

"if rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it"!

The day this lot goes into law and cannot be challenged in law is the day when we can decide whether to be raped and lie back to enjoy it until then we should do everything to fight the Bast+rd off.

Pace

[JW411]

IO540:

But your aeroplane was already on the G-register!

I agree that getting it back on to the G-register would not be cheap for several waves (if not a sunami) will undoubtedly be made by the CAA about the time that it has been off the G-register.

I know of one chap who found his aeroplane quite worthless when he tried to revert and he could not prove that every single mod had been done, not just when it had been N-registered, but before that when it was on the CAA register.

Thus, it could be that you will have to fly the Atlantic in Tin Tac to flog it in the US of A one day but don't expect the local FAA guy to accept as "sight unseen" either.

I wish I could offer an alternative policy but, at the end of the day, you and I are going to be stuck with whatever the European Authorities decide.

"Whenever I have acted out of fear, I always LOST money".

Is this all about money Peter? I doubt it. You should have courage in your own ability for you are surely no idiot in my opinion. I know you to be a good planner and your plans usually work out well.

If you were ever to ask for my advice, I would say go for a CAA IR. I know you will have to bite your tongue on occasion but I have little doubt that you would hack it and then you would be qualified on both sides of the fence.

In the end, it would be the cheaper option.

[englishal]

1. Re-registering your machine on to a foreign register.
2. Organising a maintenance organisation to look after your aircraft on the new register.
3. Finding a foreign-qualified IR examiner to do your IR renewal every year.
4. Finding an AME who can issue FAA medicals as well as CAA ones (Mine does).
5. Face the possibility of explaining to a ramp-checker in Albania whose English is somewhat limited that your aircraft is not actually yours but is owned by a trust in Delaware.
6. Constantly trying to stay one step ahead of the inevitable outcome of EASA banning foreign registered aircraft.
1. no problem - FAA IA lives in the hangar opposite
2. no problem - see above
3. not applicable - rolling currency, plenty of CFIIs around
4. no problem - He does my JAR one and charges me £20 for the FAA class 2
5. not an issue if the paperwork is in order
6. that is the only problem, for no good reason.

[Pace]

6. that is the only problem, for no good reason.

I think we can all guess the real reasons but anyone know the official reasons given for requiring resident Europeans to hold licences which have no relevance or bearing on the aircraft being flown?

Just wondered what the "official" spin is on this?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

In some ways the official spin is easy - we expect to have legislative control over our own people - in other words if you live here, then, rightly, you should be subject to our laws, not those of a country the other side of the globe.

That is not unreasonable.

However given the current status quo it is unreasonable that those already operating in the existing legislative climate do not have a realstic mechanism for converting their existing licences.

(I appreciate that if they did it still would sound the death knell for new pilots obtaining a private EASA IR unless the requirements are relaxed, but that is yet another matter)

[Pace]

we expect to have legislative control over our own people

But forcing European residents does not give legislative control as those licences have no bearing to an FAA aircraft.

If you hold an EASA ATP you cannot legally earn an income flying an N reg Jet if you as the Captain crash that N reg Jet its the FAA licences which will be checked not your EASA licences, its the FAA who will have control over their aircraft not EASA.

Yes EASA may have the power to legislate that you must hold a marine boat handling certificate to fly N reg aircraft and it might as well be a marine boat handlling cetificate but that has no bearing on flying the aircraft The EASA licences have NO bearing whatsoever. If something goes wrong the buck stops with the FAA.

So really this has no meaning other than a back door attempt at a legal move to try and curb the use of foreign reg aircraft based in Europe.
It is a loophole EASA hope they have found but gives them NO control in that sense.
If so what EASA licences do i need to fly a Business jet which in FAA land can be flown on a PPL IR? I cannot accept money using an EASA licence so in law that licence would have no meaning. Just think it through!

Various European countries have tried to stop N reg in the past and failed so I presume some clever legal Eagle has suggested this! Whether it would stand up to legal scrutiny would be up to the courts to decide.
My gut instincts are that as in the past It is flawed in a number of areas and there is a legal battle to be had if someone takes it on?

but that is the BIG question will someone take it on or have the money time and motivation to do so ?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

But forcing European residents does not give legislative control as those licences have no bearing to an FAA aircraft.

but it would. Caught in the cockpit of a N reg without an EASA license and EASA would be able to prosecute.

[Pace]

but it would. Caught in the cockpit of a N reg without an EASA license and EASA would be able to prosecute

And maybe thats the way to go for a challenge in the courts??? let them?

Based on the fact that purely on your colour or creed that you are not allowed to fly this aircraft! Unless you hold licences which have no relevance and are not themselves legal to use to fly an FAA reg jet. Other pilots of other nations are not expected to comply hence discrimination.

Your Honour purely based on this guys race we demand he holds a Marine boat handling licence to fly a N reg jet which he holds full licences to fly and is approved to fly by the controlling country. Our licences are totally illegal used on this aircraft and have no bearing to that aircraft but we expect him to have them anyway although they dont mean a thing on N reg and might as well be Marine boat handling licences for what they are worth! But we consider our licences to be superior although we have to admit that statistics dont back that up. Infact private op FAA corporate jet aircraft have a better safety record than our own controlled AOC aircraft :ugh:

I am not as convinced as some of us that this latest attempt isnt as legally flawed as previous attempts but if it ever hits the light of day it needs to be challenged but preferably before it hits the light of day.

Pace

[mm_flynn]

but it would. Caught in the cockpit of a N reg without an EASA license and EASA would be able to prosecute.

Ignoring the issue of insurance, which of course is a big issue, what is the penalty for flying an aircraft without the correct easa licence. Frequently the enforcement action is suspension of your licence.

[flybymike]

Here is the latest from IAOPA.

EASA to move against the N-register

EASA has finally shown its hand on the issue of N-registered aircraft based in Europe, and the news is bad. The Agency intends to make it illegal for pilots domiciled in Europe to fly perrmanently in Europe on American licenses, which will come as a hammer blow to holders of the FAA Instrument Rating. An estimated 10,000 European pilots will have to convert to JAA or EASA licenses, by a process and at a cost that has yet to be established. In the case of the Instrument Rating, it is not clear whether any credit at all will be given for having an FAA IR when applying for a European equivalent. It will certainly mean substantial and costly additional training and the sitting of seven examinations. The number of pilots driven out of general aviation, or declining to come in, is likely to be high.
IAOPA is particularly aghast at the sweeping nature of EASA’s intentions because they have nothing to do with safety. Over the decades in which the current system has pertained there have been no safety issues with oversight, with instrument flying, with maintenance or any other factor. General aviation is being sucked into a trade war involving the big beasts at Boeing and Airbus, with protectionist tactics grinding up our own GA industry in pursuit of political point-scoring.
A European pilot who obtains a licence or rating in the United States will be required to undergo as-yet unspecified validation and checking on his return, and within two years will have to have converted the FAA document to the EASA equivalent, a process which will not be straightforward or inexpensive. In the case of the Instrument Rating, EASA plans to require the applicant to study for and pass all seven written exams and undergo flight training which will probably cost tens of thousands of euros even for pilots who've been flying safely for decades on FAA IRs. While it will still be legal to own an N-registered aircraft, the market in such aircraft will shrink, with some that have been modified to FAA STCs being rendered unsaleable in Europe. Those pilots who have American PPLs but cannot attain JAR Class II medical standards will also be adversely affected.
The plans, set out by EASA’s Deputy Head of Rulemaking Eric Sivel in a note to AOPA UK, confirm IAOPA’s fears that political chauvinism is taking precedence over safety and good sense. M Sivel says the proposals are stipulated in the Basic Regulation which covers everything EASA does. However, in talks with EC Transport Commissioner Daniel Calleja and others over the past five years IAOPA has been given to understand they could be flexed at the Implementing Rule stage. In its response to EASA’s consultation on the implementation of its Flight Crew Licensing proposals IAOPA pointed out that if a state has issued a licence and a medical in accordance with ICAO standards, other states should accept it without adding onerous requirements. Now, however, we are being told it is set in stone.
The end result will be that if EASA gets its way, going to America for a PPL will be pointless; but how many of those who were contemplating it will now get EASA licenses instead? Of the FAA licence and IR holders now in Europe, how many will pay the money and take the time to covert, and how many will simply walk away? And at the end of it all, what will have been gained?
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson is meeting IAOPA’s lawyers in Brussels next week to discuss options.

[peter272]

So within weeks of Eric Sivel speaking at the AOPA Duxford meeting, all that good work is undone

EASA are either being deliberately slimy or are useless at communicating. Probably both

[IO540]

Both, definitely.

[172driver]

The end result will be that if EASA gets its way, going to America for a PPL will be pointless

Actually, no. Just don't come back to this benighted continent. :ugh:

[hum]

Our licences are totally illegal used on this aircraft and have no bearing to that aircraft but we expect him to have them anyway although they dont mean a thing on N reg and might as well be Marine boat handling licences for what they are worth! :D

I think I'll get one of these before the rush... (to go along with National, JAA, FAA licences...) anyone know how many exams you have to pass to get a boat licence? :mad: :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Fuji Abound]

anyone know how many exams you have to pass to get a boat licence?


Just one - practical and theory are combined.

Of course you dont need a license in the UK, but you do in much of the rest of Europe - but just wait until they decide to unify the laws on that!

[BEagle]

Being Pythonesque, all EASA was supposed to be was 'JAA crossed out and EASA written in crayon....' qv YouTube - Monty Python - Fish License (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw)

Evidence must now be gathering at the complete farce for which these bungling €urocrats are entirely to blame.

[Pace]

However, there is zero doubt that the trustee is the legal owner, and piercing a trust arrangement is very difficult. Trusts have been established for centuries and are accepted widely.

10540

The trust which is Non European is the legal owner so no problem there we then come to the operator?

The PPL flying a Cirrus would be classified as the operator unless He/she secures a third party operator?

It all comes down to the definition of operator which may not be as clear on a one man band show as in a larger aircraft where it is common practice to use an outside operator while having the crew seperate.

Whether using a facility in the IOM on the IOM reg classified as an "operator" but in reality a routing system would suffice who knows.
Regardless I could see many court cases.

We should do what the french have always done. 10000 N reg pilots all ignoring the law and refusing to accept or acknowledge that law would cause pandemonium and a relook at the whole thing but we are not the french.

As one poster put it we shouldl just lie down and be raped with a smile on our faces in gratitude to the rapist :ugh:

Face it my proposal of a mass petition generated through the huge focus of PPRUNE and its thousands of aviation enthusiasts hardly generated any interest?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace


Face it my proposal of a mass petition generated through the huge focus of PPRuNe and its thousands of aviation enthusiasts hardly generated any interest?



Dont take this the wrong way please but I am surprised you reached that conclusion giving up so easily. What did you expect? A string of posters telling you what a good idea it was?

It doesnt take too much effort through these forum to get pilot's to support initiatives of this sort - but it does take some effort.

If you started a petition and made yourself busy promoting the petition you would be amased how much support it would receive. None of us (almost without exception) support this nonesense.

However the trouble is we are happy to bitch about it, but few are prepared to put in any effort.

All credit to you for suggesting the petition, and no shame if you cant be bothered to take it any further, but dont expect people to fall over themselves supporting your efforts before you have even set the first hurdle, never mind crossed it. When it comes to lobbying, life just does not work that way.

[IO540]

I think more than one factor has been at work on this EASA stuff.

Firstly only the saddest anoraks read the EASA docs. Personally I lose interest after the first page and then I just speed-read, which I think most normal people do and is exactly what EASA hopes for. If I was running EASA that is what I would be doing: writing thousands of pages of bull***t. I am getting paid for it by the EU, after all. Wonderful stuff, which won't be repeated in my lifetime. So a lot of people have been ignoring this whole thing because they cannot get their head around what it means, or what it might mean.

Secondly there is a lot of apathy among pilots, especially UK ones.

This FCL stuff is not a done deal yet and won't be for quite a while. It needs wide publicity, especially at the top political level and especially abroad, especially in the USA where the Airbus tanker contract stuff is hitting the fan as I speak. A single tanker is worth 1000x more than the entire FCL proposal, and don't forget that Airbus = France = EASA = EU (de facto). 1 phone call is all it takes to squash this whole thing. It's called political reality.

Any publicity is worth doing.

[172driver]

It needs wide publicity, especially at the top political level and especially abroad, especially in the USA where the Airbus tanker contract stuff is hitting the fan as I speak

Quite. I'm sure a well-crafted letter by IAOPA to the relevant people in the US government / congress / senate along the lines of 'American pilots are being discriminated against in Europe' might well work wonders....

[S-Works]

Quite. I'm sure a well-crafted letter by IAOPA to the relevant people in the US government / congress / senate along the lines of 'American pilots are being discriminated against in Europe' might well work wonders....

American pilots are not being discriminated against in anyway. Just Europeans that happened to have chosen the USA as a flag of convenience are being brought into line with the those operating under the normal regulations.

[janbrill]

American pilots are not being discriminated against in anyway. Just Europeans that happened to have chosen the USA as a flag of convenience are being brought into line with the those operating under the normal regulations.

Yikes! Didn't know Mr. Sivel was taking part in the discussion. I would be very, very careful in defining the motives of owners and pilots choosing the FAA-system for their operations.

It might very well be, they choose the n-register as a flag of:

Sanity, to register their brandnew or old aircraft for which the EASA doesn't provide any means of registration (due to chauvinistisc protectionism, bureaucratic inaction, incompetence or all of the above).


Security, because they operate in areas of the world where the organisation-based maintenance-approach of the EASA simply doesn't fly.


Safety, because they want a reasonable way to fly IFR and prefer to operate under a set of regulations that has demonstrated for decades an unequaled safety-record - anytime, anyplace.


Freedom, because JAR/EASA denies them a medical due to unprooven and scientifically unfounded fears and myths. These pilots certainly won't be "brought into line" as you state. They will be kicked out of line. Period. And while I don't know what your activity in aviation is, I doubt fewer pilots, fewer aircraft and fewer flights will help your business.


Regards,
Jan Brill
Managing Editor
Pilot und Flugzeug

[Pace]

American pilots are not being discriminated against in anyway. Just Europeans that happened to have chosen the USA as a flag of convenience are being brought into line with the those operating under the normal regulations.

European pilots who legitimately hold FAA licences are being discriminated against big time.

Bose lets talk the truth.

This will cost many FAA licence holders a fortune. There are 10000 FAA licence holders in Europe who have been forced to take that route as the European regulations are so unfriendly towards GA.

EASA could quite happily have put a European PPL IR into place based on the FAA system and the problem would have vapourised.

FAA has been in Europe for decades, pilots have and do run careers under FAA and one legal friend even thinks there is a possibility of suing EASA for those costs. The practice has been inground in our history through time and these pilots will be financially damaged through no fault of their own. The damage is purely through the bully boy tactics of EASA.

EASA wanted a way to get rid of N reg based in Europe.

Their best call was to find evidence that EASA licences were safer and as such they could claim that EASA licences were required on a safety basis.

Quangos, research groups infact could not find that evidence.

Surprisingly Part 135 ops are safer than the equivalent AOC ops although less regulated. regarding jets! private jet ops have also come out to be safer than the strictly controlled and expensive to run AOC OPS.

EASA has chosen to work against aviation with their burocratic nonsense and are damaging a lot of people as well as European aviation in the process for no sensible reason and piling huge costs onto our industry through their actions.

I do hope that AOPA find lots of legal faults in what they are attempting to do as absolutely nothing positive has come from EASA. They should have been disbanded last time.

ALL REGULATIONS should be based on one thing only and thats safety sadly they are NOT and that is where EASA is wrong.

Pace

[SunnyDayInWiltshire]

BBC reports that the UK government may act to reduce what it sees as excessive Health and Safety regulations - seen by some as an overbearing nanny state - which is claimed to have caused high levels of litigation and a so-called compensation culture.

BBC News - Reduce health and safety burden, Cameron adviser urges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11454241)

I wondered if the groundswell of support for removing some of the more bizarre aspects of regulations might be used to pushback on these FCL proposals too. (I'm not suggesting where safety would be compromised of course.)

[peter272]

Yeh, right.........:hmm:

[englishal]

Most of us pilots who never had the burning ambition to operate the gear and flaps on a Boeing (or earn more money doing something else) use the FAA system to modularly build up our qualifications and experiences as a hobby if you like while flying as Private Pilots.

One day maybe we'll get paid to fly, maybe not, or maybe occasionally, but at least I haven't run up £60k debt on the "off chance" that someone might pay me £20,000 pa to dodge thunderstorms in a King Air (though I have been offered the chance to co-pilot a CJ3 using my FAA quals). Under JAR there is no facility to do this, you either commit to it 100% or don't. This in itself is detrimental to flight safety as the FAA found out years ago.

I can also fit valuable safety equipment to our N reg plane - engine monitors which would cost an arm and a leg in fees to fit under EASA, and frankly I wouldn't have them, as an example.

We actually have our plane maintained by a JAR 145 CAA approved company, who work closely with an FAA IA who signs off their work, so by being on the N reg we still maintain our aeroplane to the same standards as G reg aeroplanes....The difference is the reduction in some fees and charges, and after hearing horror stories this week of ARC renewal fees at some places running up to £1300 (where the CAA only take £75) there is a definite tendency for aviators to be ripped off in the UK. Which is why I am glad to be out of the system.

If I was forced to go back to the G reg, I think I'd fly our plane to the USA and sell it, then only fly a permit aeroplane in the UK, and go and spend all my money on several flying holidays in the USA each year....and maybe fly something more exciting.

Note: Even some of the well voiced "experts" on here, while they like to give the appearance they are some sort of CAA apointed SkyGod, only hold JAA PPL's but use these "flags of convenience" and various EU loopholes to work their way into a paid flying job in Europe - perfectly legally I assume.

[IO540]

Just come out of AOPA...

EASA's eleventh-hour attempt to bounce the industry into accepting
disastrous regulations aimed at killing off the N-register in Europe have
shocked the aviation world and led to frantic last-minute moves to stop the
Agency bulldozing new rules through the European Commission.
When the Agency finally showed its hand on the N-register it was through
proposals on Flight Crew Licensing which will make it impossible for
European citizens to fly in Europe on American licences, render worthless
the FAA Instrument Rating and blow the bottom out of the market in
N-registered aircraft. If they are adopted, the plans will force thousands
of pilots to undertake new training courses costing millions of euros and
slide the already-depressed used aircraft market into the mire. The safety
benefit will be zero.
After years of discussion, the details became clear just two weeks before
the EC was due to make a final decision on EASA's proposals. IAOPA is asking
the Commission to set the issue aside to allow time for its impact to be
properly assessed.
The plans fly in the face of every assurance given by EASA's principals that
while they wanted European pilots to fly on European registers, they would
properly address the reasons why they did not. EASA's Executive Director
Patrick Goudou promised in 2005: "We will ensure there are no special
advantages to being on the N-register." He has not kept his side of the
bargain. Few of the compelling reasons why European pilots are driven into
the arms of the FAA have been addressed, and those that have been looked at
have been skimmed over in a desultory and unsatisfactory way.
EASA's claimed motivation for attacking the N-register is safety, but that
is a smoke-screen for political chauvinism. Aviation is a trade battleground
between Europe and America, and pilots and owners are caught between the
trenches. There has never been any evidence, or even any credible claim,
that the N-register is unsafe. With this move, EASA has gone far beyond its
safety remit and stepped completely into the realms of political
protectionism.
IAOPA-Europe met in Amsterdam at the weekend to plan a response. Delegates
from 17 European countries debated emergency tactics, and Craig Spence, Vice
President of Regulatory Affairs for AOPA US, flew in from Washington. He
left with a full understanding of the gravity and urgency of the matter.
AOPA UK's Pam Campbell outlined the issue which, she said, had come as
"something of a bombshell". To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the
country of register, would require an EASA licence and if applicable an EASA
Instrument Rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on
a non-European licence would be available from national aviation
authorities, valid for one year. The pilot would have to apply to the
authority of the nation in which he or she resided. There would be a test
for the validation, and no repeat validation would be possible, although an
extension would be granted for a maximum of one year if the pilot could
prove that training to convert the licence or rating has been commenced.
The minimum requirements to convert a third country PPL would be to pass an
examination in Air Law and Human Performance, a PPL Skills Test and a Class
2 medical. It would also be necessary to demonstrate English language
proficiency, and to have a minimum of 100 hours. That would convert the
licence to a PPL with an SEP rating. Higher qualifications would be granted
subject to additional training at the discretion of the service provider.
The holder of an FAA Instrument Rating would have to study for and sit seven
theoretical knowledge exams, which are currently the greatest barrier to the
IR for private pilots. EASA is tinkering with theoretical knowledge
requirements but there will be few game-changing amendments. It is unclear
whether there would be any credit for American training or hours flown.
Emmanuel Davidson of AOPA France said there were more than 10,000 European
pilots holding FAA licences flying in Europe. "We have to bear in mind that
if your American licence is made illegal and you have an N-registered plane,
when you fly it on a European licence you will have to apply both European
and FAA regulations, which would mean you can only fly in the country that
has issued your licence. It will be illegal to fly, say, from France to
Germany or England to Belgium. Those aircraft which have been modified to
FAA STCs may not be able to go on the European register and will have to be
sold, but to whom? A glut of aircraft will come onto the market, and the
only place you'd be able to sell them would be America. There will be
massive compensation claims against EASA and the EC."
IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said this had been sprung on the
industry at the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour, and that all
assurances given by EASA and EC figures that the situation was not as dire
as it seemed had proved valueless. "We are facing a firing squad which has
its rifles cocked," he said. "EASA has consulted on Part FCL, and in
response to IAOPA's specific comments on third country licences it responded
with one word - 'Noted.' That is all. EASA sends its work as an opinion to
the European Commission, which has a time frame in which to accept or
reject, and the hearing for that is on the 13th and 14th October."
IAOPA has already met with MEPs and European Commission figures and more
meetings are scheduled with the aim of getting the Commission to allow more
time to discuss the issue. "Our first objective is to get the EC wound up to
'park' the issue so the ramifications can be looked at," Robinson said. "In
the short time we have available, there is no other option. Then we have to
work on how we modify the text to get a proper resolution.
"There is no guarantee that the EC will listen. They could say we've had our
chance, but we can demonstrate that our comments simply haven't been
listened to. The regulatory impact of this will be enormous, and I believe
they are poorly understood, even at EASA. I cannot believe they have done a
proper Regulatory Impact Assessment on FCL. If they even begin to work out
how many people would be driven out of aviation by this, EASA and the EC
would recoil from it."
There is little individual AOPA members can do at this late stage to
influence events. Martin Robinson said: "If you feel strongly about this you
can write to Mike Smethers, Chairman of the EASA Board of Management, at the
CAA in Kingsway, with a copy to your local MEP. But time is so short that we
can only take emergency measures at this stage."
IAOPA will keep members informed of progress as it happens.

[Fuji Abound]

IO540 - I think this is a very well written article, sums up the frustration so many of us feel, as well as outlining the enormous impact this will have on GA in Europe.

I am more convinced that ever that EASA are not fit for purpose, and are proving themselves to be one of the worst examples of Europe not serving its people.

It is such a shame that a genuine opportunity has been missed.

[IO540]

Somebody ought to circulate this to the Marketing head of Cessna, Piper, and the various light jet manufacturers.

I had already done so a year or so ago, but they may think it has gone away.

[englishal]

There are too many loopholes in this EASA swiss cheese lawmaking (of which not much is LAW at the moment). For example, if my aeroplane were owned by an American "operator" then can I fly it?

If my trust is based solely in America, can I fly it?

There is no talk of "pilot in command", for obvious reasons (UA777 from LAX to LHR would be affected) so I think this whole EASA debacle is unworkable in practice. If they intended "pilot in command" the affects would be far reaching and disastrous for the EU.