EASA N REG and AOPA Statement

[Pace]

Here is the latest from AOPA kindly posted in the other N reg thread by FlyByMike but worth its own title

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.

[IO540]

Excellent to hear that finally UK AOPA is clearly backing N-regs :ok:

I suspect there is now a realisation that the number of pilots in question is pretty significant.

[Pace]

10540

At least the Lawyers are looking at it all and my guess is there is far more clout against this charade than many realise.
EASA again trying to reinvent the wheel but thankfully we have laws which protect us from being unfairly trampled by such organisations.

Pace

[Aviator1512]

It sounds like EASA are only doing what the FAA has always done - protect their own. I don't not want to defend EASA, but it has to be said that the FAA do not allow foreign reg aircraft to operate in the US unless on a temporary basis.
The same is for aircrew & engineering licences - they have to be converted, and in the case of the engineering licence the FAA do not allow any dispensation for already holding any form of EASA or CAA licence.
So can you really blame EASA for just copying the FAA's policy?

[IO540]

has to be said that the FAA do not allow foreign reg aircraft to operate in the US unless on a temporary basis.

Do you have a reference for the rules on this?

I personally know a Brit who flew a G-reg there for a few years.

My vague recollection is there are no movement / parking restrictions but some flights need to be notified.

In practice the issue is totally moot because nobody in their right mind would want to do that. You would not want to maintain a G-reg out there, for starters.

The FAA hands out a free (US taxpayer subsidised) set of papers to anybody who arrives in the USA, for flying an N-reg plane.

The whole reason we are having this EASA bollox is because EASA pretends that the FAA doesn't do license validation. The only acceptable method to the morally and intellectually superior Europeans is a bilateral treaty, and it looks like the FAA has refused to sign one (unsuprisingly since they have nothing to gain). If EASA did license validation, like just about every other country in the world does, this whole issue would go away and the N-reg scene would (for the most part) not have come about over here in the first place.

[Pace]

I agree with 10540 who in their right minds would ever want to maintain a G reg in the USA?

That is the point in a Free market you make whatever you try to sell as attractive as possible to your customer so that they will not want to go to the competition.

EASA could have tackled the N reg problem by putting something attractive in place which would make flying N pointless but instead they choose to beat their pilots into submission.

People have flown N reg for decades quite legally, pilots have created a business and livelyhoods who now if this goes ahead will be severely financially damaged through no fault of their own.

Again I refer to the European Court of human rights and compensation claims?
It is interesting that AOPA refer to a Boeing Airbus battle what has that to do with the legislative process and damaging the interests of 10000 FAA licenced pilots in Europe?

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

Pace

[IO540]

What I have heard, which might well be inaccurate, is that the EU tried to sign up a bilateral treaty with the USA, covering a wide range of issues.

Some of these were trivial and some (like EU airlines being able to operate domestically in the USA) were not so trivial. The bilateral license acceptance bit was thrown into the pot.

Last I heard was that the FAA walked away from this, and shortly afterwards EASA brought out their latest proposal which subjects ME turboprops and jets (but nothing below that level) to EASA maintenance oversight. So Socata and Pilatus are in, but King Airs are out (and will have more hassle) because they are, along with most jets, American.

It's all a bit dirty.

[Mike Cross]

If EASA did license validation, like just about every other country in the world does

On which subject:- If EASA does what they say and make it illegal to fly an EASA a/c without an EASA licence then I won't be able to fly a 172 on my CAA licence. I will however be able to continue to fly my Luscombe because it's Annex II.

I will be able to take my CAA license to a non-EASA country and have it "rendered valid" to use the ICAO terminology so I can fly a 172 there. I will NOT be able however to have the same licensed renderd valid by my home State. What planet do these people inhabit?

[peter272]

..but once EASA FCL rules bite, your UK PPL will be invalid and it will not be possible to revalidate/renew it. Examiners will not be able to sign the renewal certificate so the licence, although valid for life, will be unusable

[hum]

The Agency intends to make it illegal for pilots domiciled in Europe to fly perrmanently in Europe on American licenses,

Have these people nothing better to do?

What about the ICAO principle that one flies an ICAO-registered aircraft using a matching ICAO licence anywhere in the world...

Are European regulators going to insist, for example, on current EASA type ratings for European-based N-reg aircraft that do not need type ratings within the FAA system?

Are the same regulators going to somehow insist that a valid FAA instrument rating (where validity is based on currency - how sensible) is somehow negated because one's EASA instrument rating happens to have gone out currency because one has not done an annual flight test (presumably not allowed in an 'N' reg aircraft)? (same logic applies to type rating...)

This could become a fiasco of monumental proportions that will waste lots of time & money, do nothing for flight safety, but create lots of paper, jobs & conferences. :D:D:D

Utter Bollox

[BEagle]

If EASA did beer in the same way as they are trying flight crew licensing, it sure as hell wouldn't be Heineken. Not even Red Barrel....

At the meeting AOPA et al had with the EASA last December, I was given categoric assurance by Sivel that there would be no requirement for EASA licensing of N-reg pilots. Why has he now reneged on this?

Actually, this is all good news. But for only one reason - it just provides yet further proof (as if any were needed) that EASA is fundamentally flawed and wholly unfit for purpose.

[Pace]

Are European regulators going to insist, for example, on current EASA type ratings for European-based N-reg aircraft that do not need type ratings within the FAA system?

As I read it EASA will accept third country type ratings but the pilots licences must be mirrored by EASA ones?
What does that mean I have no clue. In my own case I hold an FAA ATP and am type rated on the C500/550/560 you only need a PPL IR to fly that aircraft. You cannot earn money using an EASA ATP on an FAA Aircraft.

I could understand this if statistics showed FAA licences to be poor in comparison to EASA. They could claim a safety angle but they cannot EASA followed every angle to find a shred of evidence hoping to use that arguement but failed.

A good friend and co pilot of mine went the FAA way at huge expense to himself because he failed the EASA medical on eyesight but passed on the FAA system who is going to be liable for ruining his aviation career and who will reimburse him the £1000s he has spent furthering his career all which he did to legally fly in Europe?

The sick fact is that you could hold EASA ATP and an EASA type rating but you could not jump into an FAA aircraft and fly it. Reason the licences have absolutely NIL validity on FAA aircraft and visa versa.

As I said in a last post EASA might as well insist you hold a Marine boat handling certificate to Fly an FAA aircraft which you are already fully licenced and legal to fly.

The whole thing is DISGUSTING and I am sure a equally clever aviation Lawyer can find plenty of ammunition in European law to shoot this farce down.

EASA was severely rapped and almost disbanded for trying to re design the wheel they obviously have not learnt a thing from before.

Pace

[172driver]

Article 4
Basic principles and applicability

1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance, which are:
(a) ...........; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been
delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(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; or
(d) 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

I think the sticking point is the operator. Pace, for example, if you fly an N-reg where the operator is based in the US (or anywhere outside EASA territory, for that matter), then there's no problem, the regs don't apply to you. If my reading is correct - I am no lawyer, I hasten to add - then the bizjet crowd will simply decamp to friendlier shores and keep on flying.

It gets a bit stickier with individual owners who own their a/c through the usual trust arrangement. However, even here the 'operator' is based outside EASA-land. Might well take a court case or two to sort this one out.

PS: the above quote is from a CAA paper referenced in the other thread on EASA.

[IO540]

the bizjet crowd will simply decamp to friendlier shores and keep on flying.I think that is true. So this will affect only the small fry. Same as the 2005 DfT proposal to boot out N-regs after 90 days; there were relatively easy work-arounds for internationally moving jet fleet operators.

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.

There is a summary of the present EASA proposals on the pplir.org site, which presents a rather less certain certainty of outcome than has been written here (because all but one of the EASA proposals have some way to go before becoming law, and the one which is law is too vague to mean much) but you have to be a member to read it...

[dublinpilot]

EASA could have tackled the N reg problem by putting something attractive in place which would make flying N pointless but instead they choose to beat their pilots into submission.



That is very true, but I think only part of the picture.

While the N-Reg in the EU might be seen as a "problem" to EASA, it could also be seen as an opportunity.

Currently the US has a huge share of the flight training market. The proposals that EASA proposes to take will do little to take any of that back.

While if they had of followed your suggestion, and put in something attractive, then perhaps we could have foreign students coming to the EU for flight training!

We have a number of advantages in Europe to offer future commerical pilots. Our systems are probably closer to ICAO rules than the US (who has been able to go its own way on many things due to its size). Our borders are closer together, offering students more of an opportunity to experience international travel. We speak many different languages (some of which might be more attractive to foreign students than English for learning through) which probably will given the students more realistic experience for their future careers. (Not everyone they will speak to from a flight deck of an airliner will have English as their first language).

So not only are we badly dealing with a problem, but we are also badly dealing with an opportunity.

dp

[Mike Cross]

..but once EASA FCL rules bite, your UK PPL will be invalid and it will not be possible to revalidate/renew it. Examiners will not be able to sign the renewal certificate so the licence, although valid for life, will be unusable

Terminological carelessness Peter. I don't have to renew my LICENCE, its for life. What I have to do is revalidate my RATING and have a valid medical. The JAA Rating Revalidation already qualifies.

Of course the CAA could revoke my licence, but they have not signalled any intent to do that, indeed it is they who have suggested that I can continue to fly Annex II but not EASA.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&ts_EuropeanLegislation_ExpectedEffectOnUKPilots_Sept2010.pdf

[Squeegee Longtail]

So, do I understand this ridiculous situation correctly? I can continue flying my Annex II a/c on my FAA license? I am hoping so.

[peter272]

Terminological carelessness Peter. I don't have to renew my LICENCE, its for life. What I have to do is revalidate my RATING and have a valid medical. The JAA Rating Revalidation already qualifies.

Hands up. I admit it but the effect is the same. If you can't revalidate then your licence dies

[mm_flynn]

As I understand it the CAA are plannning to use the existing non-EASA licences as a basis to fly non-EASA aircraft (ie Annex II). Today you renew a rating for SEP not Annex II. So it would seem there must remain process that will validate the rating into the future

[Aerial Chauffeur]

My vague recollection is there are no movement / parking restrictions but some flights need to be notified.

I know of a British guy who keeps a 'G' reg. Bulldog out in the US.

The Bulldog never had an FAA type certificate, so it couldn't be put on the 'N' reg.

There are no restrictions on keeping foreign reg. aircraft in the States. I DO know that you ARE required to notify authorities of every movement that a 'foreign registered' biz jet makes out there.

[AdamFrisch]

I quite extensively researched the subject of a G-reg in the US, but could not find any evidence that you had to notify any authorities about your movement within the US. However, crossing any border and coming in to the US requires prior permission and a special form.

[IO540]

For sure, nothing in the FARs limits permanent G-reg basing in the USA.

I also don't recall seeing anything saying that you cannot do (what they call here) aerial work in it, including training for US papers.

[500 above]

Hi

I do seem to remember on a flightsafety int operational procedures recurrent the instructor telling us that US Customs (not the FAA) needed prior notice before arrival into the US of any intended airports likely to be used WITHIN the US for a foreign registered aircraft. I.E not just the first port of landing.

Also, the 'feds' wanted to know all possible crew and pax names and passport details along with the aircraft's registered owner(s) and usual cargo. I will try to fish out the references from the fsi manuals if time permits.