EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[Mike Cross]

Info here. (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=248:iaopa-news-on-third-country-licences&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=247)

[A and C]

EASA are the worst sort of eurocrats they sit in Cologne inventing new rules but they are not able to properly administer the rules that they have in place at the moment.

They have made MEP flying too expensive, they are about to make SEP training more expensive, part M maintenance costs IRO £ 1000 per year more for no increase in safety.

The attack on the American registered aircraft is pure spite because EASA seem unable to put an affordable IR in place for GA pilots so their answer is to try to stop GA pilots flying with the FAA IR. This move high lights how totaly unfit EASA is to run aviation within Europe, after all if EASA administered European Aviation properly Pilots would be more than happy to get an EASA IR.

[Pace]

Mike this is the most disgusting Manner for EASA to behave and the most direct view to show that this organisation known as EASA have not got aviation interests at heart a must read

Latest Received from IAOPA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAOPA presses the EC to delay EASA's N-register attack

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

[IO540]

EASA also appear dishonest, with their well known top official telling people privately face to face that N-regs will be OK, etc.

Anyway, at least somebody is getting into gear.

[dpo2309j]

Like many here I am totally disgusted by this incompetent organization.
And I am totally disgusted by the incompetent, ill-informed politicians who have put them there.

Do these idiots think we should burn more THOUSANDS of pounds more on Part-M maintenance requirements and THOUSANDS of pounds more on forced conversion to EASA-IR, WITH NO SAFETY BENEFITS?

Just fly illegally. There's no point paying and giving them this money. It will only feed more incompetence.

I vow to make sure these idiots will never sleep until they are kicked out of office!

Anyone thought of staging a mass protest outside their offices?
I can see tens of thousands show up.

[Pace]

Just fly illegally. There's no point paying and giving them this money. It will only feed more incompetence.

DP

I didnt think I would say this but this but flying illegally is a viable option??? But many would have to ignore the regs for that approach to succeed.

The French are masters at ignoring EEC regs that they dont agree with!!! Maybe we should learn the French approach? We should be more proactive in matters which affect us unfairly because only those who shout loudest get heard.

Apathy and acceptance is not the way "act as a doormat and dont be surprised if someone wipes their dirty feet all over you!"

Pace

[flybymike]

I agree, there is already widespread panic from PPLs scurrying to heed the CAA's advice to convert lifetime CAA PPLs to JAA ones as soon as possible in order to ease the transition to EASA licences at a later date. If 15000 pilots with fully valid national ICAO licences refuse to budge ( and the CAA admit it would take years to make the transition even with willing participants) , they are not going to be able to ground them all en masse overnight.

[AN2 Driver]

they are not going to be able to ground them all en masse overnight.

You wanna watch them? They are doing it to the N-registers.

This thing is a step in a war to eradicate GA from Europe. First take away the escape possibilities then impose rulework on the homefleet to ground it. So far, it was a half baked idea, now it's turning into a direct threat.

These people need to be stopped NOW. If they don't I reckon there will be a disaster on our hands like never before. I also hope the US will react massively to this attack.

From the IAOPA Statement:

f 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.

That is where IAOPA gets it wrong. This is the objective.

[Pace]

There will be massive compensation claims against EASA and the EC.”

That is a route which does have mileage.

If pilots have been flying N reg in Europe for decades the practice has been firmly established and accepted within the EEC.

Should a body such as EASA regulate which stops people from going about their rightful business and through that those people are faced with massive costs and financial loss then they can indeed sue EASA and the EC who through their regulating have caused it.

Unless EASA can show solid grounds (ie emergency safety basis)for such damaging regulating on a practice which is so established they would indeed be liable.

I refer to our strong human rights and discrimination laws which overide such bodies as EASA

Again it would be interesting to have legal opinion on compensation claims?

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace - I wish you were right but there is nothing in human rights legislation which would be helpful.

I believe pilots as a community should do everything they legally can to prevent the legislation being adopted.

I rightly see a lot of strong views expressed here - but I dont see anyone mounting a creditable campaign.

I dont even see a good old fashion petition.

[IO540]

I am no lawyer but within the UK (no EU angle) you would have no case, due to Crown Immunity (or whatever it is called).

There is a pile of EU laws, but I would be a little suprised of EASA had not obtained some legal input on this, as it appears fairly obvious. But maybe they haven't...

The best thing is to spread the news in the USA. Airbus business (to airlines or the Pentagon) could be affected if this gets the right publicity. There are many ex pilots running these shows out there and pilots generally don't like this kind of screwing around with pilots' privileges.

I don't see what sort of campaign could be mounted. EASA is more or less done with it anyway. The only avenue open now is lobbying within the EU, but that will be wholly the dirty kind of under the table stuff, with necessary national-interest angles. The big interested parties employ professional lobbyists for that work. European GA cannot afford this; only AOPA USA can.

[Pace]

There will be massive compensation claims against EASA and the EC

Fuji 10540

The above snippet was taken from the AOPA announcement maybe they have it wrong?

Pace

[hum]

Just got this from AvWeb Biz which is widely distributed in the USA:

AOPA says a new regime of rules proposed by the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) "has potentially devastating implications for the
U.S. general aviation manufacturers and for the U.S. flight training
industry." EASA intends to adopt a wide-ranging series of amendments
to rules that appear to particularly affect those holding U.S. pilot
certificates and aircraft registered in the U.S. but resident in
Europe. "It would render FAA pilot certificates and instrument ratings
issued to pilots living and operating in Europe (including U.S.
citizens based in and flying in Europe) effectively worthless,
requiring them to essentially start over and retrain and recertify,"
AOPA spokesman Chris Dancy told AVweb. "It would also eliminate any
advantage to owning and operating an N-number-registered aircraft in
Europe."

[Pace]

Hum

You missed a bit out on the Avweb feature

AOPA says a new regime of rules proposed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) "has potentially devastating implications for the U.S. general aviation manufacturers and for the U.S. flight training industry." EASA intends to adopt a wide-ranging series of amendments to rules that appear to particularly affect those holding U.S. pilot certificates and aircraft registered in the U.S. but resident in Europe. "It would render FAA pilot certificates and instrument ratings issued to pilots living and operating in Europe (including U.S. citizens based in and flying in Europe) effectively worthless, requiring them to essentially start over and retrain and recertify," AOPA spokesman Chris Dancy told AVweb. "It would also eliminate any advantage to owning and operating an N-number-registered aircraft in Europe."



There are an estimated 10,000 pilots in Europe flying under U.S. certificates. Many of them got their training in the U.S. and a lot of flight schools cater specifically to European students. U.S. manufacturers will be hit from two directions. The rules will make U.S.-built aircraft "more difficult and expensive to own and operate," and therefore less attractive in Europe, a key market for most U.S. manufacturers, Dancy said. "And on that side of the Atlantic, it could mean a glut of N-number-registered aircraft being dumped on the market, further depressing used aircraft sales." AOPA has contacted members of Congress, the FAA and Department of Transportation to make sure they're aware of the issue. It's also supporting European aviation groups in their attempts to stop the action.

[flybymike]

I reckon the **** is really going to hit the fan over all this stuff. The commission has already bollocked EASA for "reinventing the wheel" and pressure from the US will have all manner of political repercussions. I can see the whole EASA shambles being wound up and having to start again from Scratch.

[hatzflyer]

This whole " for life" thing for the PPL is , I believe on dodgy grounds. I am as disgusted as anyone else but correct me if I am wrong, I am sure the small print says something like " for life subjuct to the laws in force at any time in the future":uhoh:

[md 600 driver]

I can't see easa doing much about it now, everyone had the chance over the last 2years or so to get it all amended ,to change it the last 2weeks after it is all agreed will take some doing and will cause a major presendence to future rule making if allowed

The licensing system has been long overdue a standardisation for all eu ,at least we hopefully will have a level playing field for the future

At the moment we all look to the licensing body of our choice,the one that suits us best, whether medically or For technical reasons ,which means not always our own countries aviation authority

[peter272]

Sadly I have to agree with you.

The problem is the time and effort by (mainly) volunteers on the working groups and within our representative organisations over many months and years results (usually) in what was originally planned. Then we get a mad panic at the last minute when what is presented as the opinion is finally published. All the nastiness is back in it, despite the hard work and effort that has gone before.

I'm still not sure in my own mind whether or not they are doing this deliberately or this happens through incompetence or accident.

Unfortunately, there are too many examples of bad faith from EASA over the years. We keep hearing about there being a lot of good guys there who want to make aviation work. I don't see much evidence of this myself

[mm_flynn]

People have been working extensively over the last years to have the more onerous aspects changed. However, at this point, it seems the drafters have ignored quite a lot of the input.

If you take the emotion out of it (which may be a bit of an ask if you are going to be off work for 6 months paying thousands to retrain) there are some very annoying aspects that are worth lobbying at the next level.


The transition arrangements are unclear and to the extent they are clear seem unreasonably onerous
There is a surprising bias against non-JAA ICAO certificates. Most countries outside the EASA environment validate or issue local certificates on the basis of an ICAO certificate with minimal additional overhead (for example in the US effectively passing an IFR procedures test for differences from ICAO standard and a BFR). Even EU national certificates have significant retesting or minimum hours requirements.
There appears to be no empirical evidence to support the need for this overhead in accepting other licences around the world. In particular, the overhead appears to support a political agenda to drive bilateral agreements rather than any safety requirement.
The key issues around IFR, which were referred to a separate committee due to their complexity, have not been included in the proposal - so in many ways it is incomplete
There appears to be a great deal of cost and conflict/overlap with the local NAAs being driven without any indication of a safety or broader community benefit.



So overall, this seems like a massive piece of work (and cost) to implement with no safety benefit. So there is a good political case to look carefully at the implementation to reduce the impact and simplify the changeover processes.

[Pace]

MM

We do have to look at the different systems and the historical reasons for them being what they are.
FAA land has always embraced GA. Being such a large continent private aircraft have always been a much needed mode of transport.

EASA land has been a mass of seperate countries with their own laws and GA didnt figure in a lot of them.

Politically aviation has been regarded as people carriers and their pilots as professionals. The training structures based more on a mini aviation degree.
EASA will not allow pilots to back door an EASA licence by finding an easy route through the FAA system.

So while a differences exam and IR flight test should be all that is required dictated by sense I doubt it will happen.

More likely IMO is that N reg will be retained although under more control by EASA

Pace

[IO540]

More likely IMO is that N reg will be retained although under more control by EASA

Not sure how that might work because they have already published a proposal which frees N-reg SE and ME pistons from oversight, allowing them to continue under FAA Part 91 as at present.

What could "more control" be, I wonder?

[Pace]

What could "more control" be, I wonder?

To put the regulations through requiring EASA licences but then allowing annual dispensations as long as you behave yourself and dont do anything wrong :ugh: complying with EASA requests on an "informal" basis?

Pace

[IO540]

Well, yes, the thing I would put money on (if I had to put money on something) is

(1) a complete (or de facto, with the politically mandatory face saving procedures) meltdown of the anti FRA proposals, or

(2) a compromise, which could be easy transitional procedures for converting ICAO papers to EASA papers (but these would have to be significantly "easy" because few "older" working bizjet CPL/IRs/ATPs will be willing or able to sit the 14 exams.)

I totally do not buy the occassionally posted assertions of how easy the 14 exams are, because all those who have said they are easy (and who are known to me) are either very bright individuals with an amazing ability to absorb and memorise tons of crap, or de facto unemployed people, or in some cases both!

Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.

[md 600 driver]

10540

Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.

What todays amazing IMC concession?.

[Pace]

SoCal

So what are you trying to say?
On an annual basis I purchase airline tickets to the USA, then rent cars pay hotels, pay 1500$ to an FAA examiner rent time on a sim or sometimes on an aircraft.

I spend 1000s of dollars every year renewing my FAA type rating. If I was stopped flying FAA then that would stop. There are many ATPs like me some who spend even more at places like flight safety.

If thousands of aircraft are no longer useable in Europe they will flood the market depreciating prices.

Joe Bloggs who has an order for a shiny new all singing dancing cirrus thats turbocharged to fly in the high teens wont bother buying it to trundle along VFR at 2 K.

My owners spend Millions $s on their jets, parts and maintenance often goes into 100,000s of $s annually

So what are you trying to say that it is OK for EASA to ban N reg in Europe although the pilots are fully qualified to fly those aircraft by insisting they hold licences which have no relevance to the aircraft flown!

But this isnt the point. I flew as a Captain on a Citation S2 35 hrs flight time over the USA, Canada, Iceland, Europe, Africa to S Africa my licences are accepted everywhere as they should be.

Flying should know NO boundaries. We should all be licenced to fly safely to a standard acceptable everywhere.

To be told your ATP and experience is worth NOTHING by EASA to be told start from scratch as an idiot is a JOKE and stinks. Its all wrong!

To be told you are fully licenced but must hold equivalent EASA licences which would be illegal if used on that N reg is mad.

To be told you must find £1000s and £1000s to get those unneeded licences out of your own pocket is madder.

To be told you will loose your position on the jets you fly because no one will wait while your away for months is INSANE
these would have to be significantly "easy" because few "older" working bizjet CPL/IRs/ATPs will be willing or able to sit the 14 exams.)

10540 will you please refrain from referring to me in this forum :E much easier please like 1 exam in large size print and preferably 10 years to do it :eek:

Pace

[md 600 driver]

the proposal is to make all domiciled eu pilots have eu licences to fly there eu based FAA aircraft

It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yet

[IO540]

A possible scaremongering comment. Even "residing in" is yet to be defined - yet alone how it might impact a non Euro citizen.If the EASA proposal to stop an EU "resident" flying an N-reg is taken at face value, the impact on a visiting American would be exactly the same once he satisfies the "residency" requirement, whatever that is.

And if you don't believe the "residency" requirement has any meaning then all of this stuff is just hot air and we can forget about talking about it!

Sure the AOPA wording is not quite joined up, but then how many UK pilots understand FAR 61.3 and how it maps onto Europe, etc. The point is that AOPA is making a lot of fuss, finally, which could be improved only by hiring Max Clifford (but UK AOPA cannot afford him, by a long way... they would have to remortgage their nice London premises ;) ). AOPA has had an ambiguous stance on N-reg for years and finally they have lined up behind this very important cause, which is to be applauded.

10540 will you please refrain from referring to me in this forum:) Actually I think we are of similar age...

the proposal is to make all domiciled eu pilots have eu licences to fly there eu based FAA aircraft

It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yetCorrect, but it is a big discouragement to flying an N-reg in Europe. The Euro IR has historically been the biggest reason for the N-reg scene.

Higher up the hardware cost scale, bizjets, airframe/equipment certification becomes more important, but equally the cost of obtaining the duplicate Euro CPL/IR or ATP papers is so much higher, with 14 exams etc.

There are many N-reg planes which could not be economically transferred to a Euro reg. They have decades of 337'd mods which would be an EASA Design agency's delight for years to come. I know a man who spent something like £8000 on paperwork for a composite oxygen cylinder for a SEP, to replace an existing steel one. Especially in many European countries, where the local CAA is totally bonkers. In some "warm Europe" places, putting a TB20 on the local reg is not much different to putting a 737 on the local reg.

[IO540]

To answer your exact question (I hope): I am not aware of anywhere where they allow long term N-reg parking but do require local papers, as well as State of Registry papers.

Regarding long term N-reg parking, this is widely disallowed, but all the countries concerned are 3rd world police dictatorships (Thailand is one case I know) where the law may or may not be written that way, but if you stay on the N-reg, "various things" get "harder" over time, and eventually you "get the idea"... you not so much have to get local papers but have to move to the local registry.

No civilised country does it.

[Pace]

There is a point that some 3rd world licences are questionable as to their quality but that doesnt cover FAA or European which are of equal quality.
The FAA model is largest worldwide.

Pace

[IO540]

doesn't France have a rule of not allowing a EU resident fly a F reg on a non JAA license but will allow a non resident to do so.

Yes, and I have a copy of a DGAC letter saying as much :)

I can dig it out for anybody interested. Not seen it for years though.

I think the intention is to allow visiting U.S. people to fly F-reg planes on their FAA PPL/IRs. A lot of European countries do validations like that, though few publicise the option because, obviously, it is rather difficult to police once the person decides to hang around in Europe for a longer period.

[englishal]

Doesn't Thailand give you a set of local papers though?

Seriously basing it on "domicile" is crazy. I could become NR of the EU by moving 40 miles south.....That holiday home in Alderney is looking very attractive!

[IO540]

The proposal uses the word "resident", not domiciled or national or citizen.

It is true that if you live on the IOM and fly an N-reg or M-reg plane, you can ignore all this crap. The problem with these places is, what can I call it.... a slight lack of diversity of DNA :)

Yes I think Thailand converts your FAA papers to local ones. I don't know the details (but could find out).

[englishal]

Maybe EASA will do something completely mad and offer us all direct EASA replacement qualifications? That could be handy ;)

[Mike Cross]

OK Chaps I've been doing some digging. You need to read the Draft Regulation for 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;
2.
the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.
3.
the licensing, training and testing of pilots of aircraft referred to in (a)(ii), (d) and (h) of Annex II to the Basic Regulation, when used in commercial air transport.

Stick with Para 1 above for the time being, then look at the Basic Regulation (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF) Article 4(c) it refers to.

Article 4
Basic principles and applicability
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance,
which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; 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

Now ask yourself whether your N Reg used by someone resident in the Community is "(c) registered in a third country" and "used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community"
If you agree with me then the pilot falls within the scope of the Draft Regulation.

Annex III of the Draft Regulation says
A. VALIDATION OF LICENCES
General
1. 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.
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
2. The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL.

Note the wording "Pilots shall apply" (my emphasis).

I've no idea what the intention is but it is certainly possible to read this as "If you are resident in the EC and operating an N-Reg you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation. If you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation you will be governed by the FCL Regulation. When that comes into force you shall apply for validation which will last for a limited time. Thereafter you will need an EASA licence."

Discuss

At the least we need clarification from EASA as to their intention.

[Pace]

But you will need an EASA licence means what? Take me for example
I hold FAA ATP plus current FAA Citation type rating. I believe somewhere I read that EASA will accept 3 rd country type ratings but do I need to have an EASA ATP? an EASA Class I medical.

As a side note a friend and first officer of mine went the FAA way because he failed his class 1 on eyesight but passed the FAA class 1 and he is 33 with his career ahead.

Having spent a fortune on his career he could find that he holds useless licences unless he works abroad?

But back to me. The Citation can be flown by an FAA PPL with an IR and the 3 country type rating.

I cannot use my EASA ATP (if I ever got one) to earn money. I use my FAA ATP for the earning money part.

So again for clarity you could theoretically gain an EASA PPL IR (I already hold JAA Multi IMCR) so in that case only the IR.

Although I have flown all over the world and europe as a Captain and have 5000 hrs the vast majority multi and jet that counts for almost Nothing?

The next point I want to make is one on responsability. You have an FAA aircraft that crashes. Which jurisdiction is responsable for the aircraft? EASA or FAA? or Joint. The answer is obvious it will be the FAA as the EASA licences hold no validity on the aircraft. EASA want control but have none in this scenario. Their only control in forcing FAA Licenced pilots to hold EASA ones is just that! They have no control over the aircraft or crew or have NO part in the operational side of that jet. Their only control is to walk up to the pilot, find out if he is a resident and demand to see his EASA licence which all seems pretty pointless from a control point of view.

Pace

[172driver]

"(c) registered in a third country" and "used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community" my bold.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again - IMHO the whole thing hinges on the definition of operator. I cannot see, how a trust based in the US can be considered to be "established or residing in the Community', much less so a company leasing biz jets.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[IO540]

Yes, we have done this one to death here, in multiple threads.

The words "operator" and "resident" are unclear and would need a precedent set by the courts - in each EU state (because any criminal action, or insurance related litigation, would be done locally). There is a lot of complexity around this, and a lot of fairly obvious avoidance tactics.

Like I said before, ICAO allows any member state to not recognise the use of foreign licenses (and medicals) by a "national" (meaning "citizen").

EASA's use of the word "resident" is pushing things a bit beyond what ICAO allows on FCL and medicals.

OTOH, each country has obviously got total jurisdiction within its borders (if you overfly Iran they might shoot at you, etc, and you can't exactly phone up ICAO and demand that somebody goes to Tehran and beats up the Ayatollah) and maybe EASA is relying on that "3rd world" option. The EU has the theoretical power to force each member state to implement any measure whatsoever.

However, from comms I have had with a real lawyer working in this field, it appears quite possible that the EASA committee which drafted this stuff never got legal advice. I find this staggering... but it would explain why we are arguing about this totally opaque bollox.

If this garbage was really drawn up by non-legal people, they must be rolling on the floor laughing at us debating it ad nauseum, and seriously contemplating going to do the JAA IRs en masse.

[Pace]

10540

Remember all those documents are titled "journal of EASA" They are not legal documents but an evolving think tank.
Yes they could then be made into legal documents by I suppose the legal department

Pace

[AN2 Driver]

Pace:

Having spent a fortune on his career he could find that he holds useless licences unless he works abroad?

Yes. That is exactly what this amounts to. No more avoiding of compulsory life sentence by medical. He'd better start looking in the US or elsewhere outside Europe now, the stampede is about to start.

Although I have flown all over the world and europe as a Captain and have 5000 hrs the vast majority multi and jet that counts for almost Nothing?


Nothing whatsoever. You are flying an American airplane and that, according to the EASA power players, won't happen after April 2012 for any European resident.

Has to be mentioned, it's not only the N- register which is concerned, but ANY register outside the EU. I agree that most of this concerns N- VP- M- and all that, but it will also end any other activity within Europe.

All in all I believe this issue will make or brake GA for Europe. If EASA get's their way with this, they will put tens of thousands of people out of work, factually destroy their livelihoods and render their planes worthless. This in return will mean a meltdown in prices of the said planes but at the same time take away a huge amount of work from maintenance organisations with FAA approval and render these people jobless. That might well mean that prices for the remaining EU registered fleet may go up as well. And it will prove that EASA can get away with everything. Not a good perspective.

We might as well start looking for new shores now.

[Pace]

AN2

All in all I believe this issue will make or brake GA for Europe. If EASA get's their way with this, they will put tens of thousands of people out of work, factually destroy their livelihoods and render their planes worthless. This in return will mean a meltdown in prices of the said planes but at the same time take away a huge amount of work from maintenance organisations with FAA approval and render these people jobless. That might well mean that prices for the remaining EU registered fleet may go up as well. And it will prove that EASA can get away with everything. Not a good perspective.

I have spoken with a Barrister today and although aviation is not his area he did confirm what I believed to be the case.

That is there are European Laws which would be breached by some of these proposals and EASA would be sued for losses in his opinion successfully for £millions.

AOPA mentioned that in their article so all is not lost
The problem is we all voice opinions me included as fact while none of us are lawyers.

True to form EASA are coming over as bumbling idiots something they were nearly disbanded for doing before. Their job was not to reinvent the wheel.

Pace

[AN2 Driver]

Pace,

That is there are European Laws which would be breached by some of these proposals and EASA would be sued for losses in his opinion successfully for £millions.

I hear you. Hopefully so will the EU Commission.

True to form EASA are coming over as bumbling idiots something they were nearly disbanded for doing before. Their job was not to reinvent the wheel.

Well, let's hope that this time it's not only us who blow our collective tops, but the EU Commission as well and boot the load of them to where they belong.

I've seen enough... even though my own aircraft is EASA reg and so are most of my licenses, I've seen the carnage in my old Antonov crowd. Since that country joined in, the whole fleet is grounded and awaiting sale or scrap. Mind, btw, quite a few of those planes now flying in Europe would be targeted by this as well. High time something was done on a broad basis. Not just fix this one, but fix the whole thing once and for all. Ah well, hope dies last.

[Pace]

AOPA Online: EU poised to vote on pilot certification (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/101005easa.html)

The latest from AOPA USA and Cirrus lodge complaint many of their sales being into Europe

Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.

Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.

“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.

[rokami93]

Is there any country in the world today that forces a 'resident' pilot to have a national license regardless of aircraft registry? i.e. does the precedent already exist?Thailand does. Let me explain their waterproof system:

1. Each and every flight requires a flightplan. No exceptions to this.:=

2. If it is a flight of a non-thai aircraft, it will need a special permit from the DCA in BKK which will inform every airspace agency or airport in Thailand of your flight and flightplan. You don't have it, your flightplan will not get accepted when presenting it. It takes about a week to get the permit for the flight, so this avoids effectively someone flying spontaneously and for his own joy a non-thai aircraft.:bored:

3. Of course, with an FAA-license you cannot fly Thai-registered aircraft. You will need an endorsement and pass some ridiculous tests on Thai airlaw, etc.

:{:{

Airlines will go through this procedure for every flight in and out of Thailand. No big deal for an airline with schedule flights, but quite a pain in the butt for Joe with his N-registered Mooney who wants to pick up his 100$-Rice in Phuket.

[IO540]

However, the above (a flight plan / permission for every flight, etc) is probably true for most 3rd world countries. GA as we know it doesn't exist there. I am not sure that showing that some BongoBongoLand offers a handy precedent for EASA helps this discussion :)

[Mike Cross]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again - IMHO the whole thing hinges on the definition of operator. I cannot see, how a trust based in the US can be considered to be "established or residing in the Community', much less so a company leasing biz jets.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Best stick with the day job then. By your criteria the "operator" of 12 Airbus A380s and 24 Boeing 787s in the British Airways fleet is The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/2817674/BA-signs-aircraft-lease-deal-with-Chinese-bank.html)

Now perhaps you'll explain which NAA has licensed the bank as an airline?

[Pace]

Mike

Thinking out of the Box! Aircraft owner employs an IOM operator to operate his jet which is IOM too. You as a commercial pilot are employed by IOM operators and fly and operate it in the UK. IOM operations are just an IOM office.
You as the pilot are carrying out all the operational duties as per normal but on behalf of IOM operations and recieve your payments from the owner through IOM operations.
How that could be made to work for an owner/ pilot?

Pace

[englishal]

but ANY register outside the EU
What about Norway? Norway is not in the EU but a member of the JAA so...??????

Or when they mention EU do they really mean EEC?

[mm_flynn]

Operator is a poorly defined word. In some cases it is very easy to establish who the operator is.

For example, Mike's BA example, some division within BA (or possibly the main holding company) has an Air Operators Certificate and the referenced aircraft are operated under this certificate. Hence the issue of who the operator is crystal clear.

Equally, in Pace's case (a professional pilot flying on behalf of and at the instruction of the aircraft owner and not responsible for maintenance in anyway beyond the normal PIC responsibilities) it should be very clear that Pace is not the operator, 'just' the PIC/Commander.

What is much less clear in this case is who would be deemed to be the operator.


Hypothetical Case
---------------
Say for example Pace works for Williams (a Woking based F1 team that races globally) and bases their Citation at EGLF. Say Williams has a subsidiary based in Delaware (to facilitate paying its highly paid staff offshore) and this subsidiary is the owner of the aircraft, coordinates the maintenance and receives dispatch requests from the rest of the Williams group.

Is the Operator the company that owns, flight plans, and despatches the plane, or the Group company that requested the dispatch, or the Holding company (which for the sake of argument is a Netherlands Antilles co for tax reasons) or some intermediate entity of EASA's choosing.
-----------------


Corporate jet operators are on the N for many reasons, and I doubt any of the reasons include helping pilots avoid sitting the IR exams! As such they will stay N and will either just tell their pilots to knuckle down or arrange a structure to avoid the problem. They will surely choose the option that is easier and cheaper from the owner's perspective.

EAl,

I am pretty sure the language is Member State (not EU, ECC, or anything else). I also believe it is a Member of EASA they are referencing. I note Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland appear to be EASA members but not part of the EU.

[172driver]

Thanks, mm-flynn, I was just about to reply to Mike along the same lines.

[IO540]

I think it is apparent that that EASA proposal was drafted by a bunch of people sitting in an underground bunker whose legal expertise came from the nearest (EU taxpayer subsidised) bar, and from the taxi driver who charges them 50 euros for a 5 minute journey (for which the driver produces a receipt without having to even ask, and which they instantly reclaim on their expenses).

Different local-court interpretations around the EU of "resident" and "operator" will make this a total farce.

I cannot understand how this could have run as far as it has. But then we had the same debate in 2005 around the DfT proposal to boot out N-regs after 90 days' parking. It took me 5 mins to work out a really good work-around (which I won't post here) and there are countless people out there who are far smarter than I am :)

[Mike Cross]

The Basic Regulation defines "operator"
(h) ‘operator’ shall mean any legal or natural person, operating
or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;

Which as a definition is about as much good as a chocolate fireguard.

In legal terms I suspect it would be interpreted as the person who has control of the use of the aircraft is put to. If he has to refer to someone else for instructions or permission he would not be the "operator".

The main thing that needs to be addressed here IMHO is not how you get round the regulation but the intent of the regulation. It's probably bu@@er all to do with safety and more to do with protectionism and bilateral trade agreements.

[englishal]

I'd like to see how anyone could possibly ramp check someone flying an N reg on a US certificate and prove they are flying illegally (or indeed any other reg using their certificate).

All these regulations will do is lead to a bunch of possibly uninsured pilots flying the skies of Europe. Surely that is a step backwards in terms of safety?

I can describe EASA with one word, begining in "W" and ending in "ers"...

PS I could have a UK passport yet be "resident" of somewhere like Brazil, could I not?!;)

[IO540]

As I wrote before, this won't be enforceable on the ramp, in the "international flight around Europe" context - simply because there is no such thing as

- a certificate of being an "operator" (non AOC context), and

- a certificate of not being EU resident :) :) :) :)

It would be an insurance claim issue only. Very bad news because of the ambiguity; the insurers could walk away from many claims.

[Pace]

It would be an insurance claim issue only. Very bad news because of the ambiguity; the insurers could walk away from many claims.

I am not an insurance expert but am not sure there would be an insurance problem.

A FAA aircraft with a pilot fully qualified to fly that aircraft is insured.
The fact that he doesnt hold totally irrelevant and dare I say ILLEGAL licences could not have a bearing on an insurance claim.

It would have to depend on the wording in the insurance document

Pace

[englishal]

From APOA-US:

EU poised to vote on pilot certification
Pressure mounts to ‘park’ the issue
By Dan Namowitz

With the European Union Commission nearing a vote on adopting EU-wide pilot certification rules, AOPA is warning that the package—which does not include acceptance of third-country pilot credentials—would erect trade barriers with consequences felt in the U.S. flight training and manufacturing sectors.


The EU Commission is set to vote following a hearing scheduled Oct. 13 through 14 on a package of flight crew licensing rules put forth by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In 2008, EASA undertook certification revisions that would supersede member nations’ procedures for the conversion of U.S. pilot certificates.

If passed into law, the proposal would adversely affect U.S. flight schools that train foreign pilots, as well as pilots coming to the United States for training. Pilots who complete their flight training in the United States would be required to repeat most of the exact same training upon returning to an EU state, and it would render the FAA instrument rating useless in Europe. U.S. aircraft manufactures and flight training schools will suffer from a downturn in business from Europe as it is unlikely anyone would invest getting a U.S. aircraft or license which lasts for one or two years, said Craig Spence, AOPA vice president of operations and international affairs.

Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.

AOPA stated its concerns about the proposal to EASA’s Cologne, Germany-based rulemaking directorate in written comments in February 2009. The association pointed out that the changes would negate the value of flight training in non-EASA countries, including the U.S.

“Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots. Currently, people seeking a pilot’s license can complete their training in the U.S. and return to an EASA country and easily exchange their U.S. certificate for an EASA license. The proposed changes would eliminate that option,” AOPA wrote on Feb. 27, 2009.

The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA) is expressing alarm at the impact facing pilots and aircraft manufacturers. “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,” it explained to members in a special message. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said that late efforts were being made to persuade the EU to “park” the issue until the impact could be re-examined. He described the EASA proposals as “a smokescreen for political chauvinism.”

“The safety benefit will be zero,” he said.

Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.

Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.

“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.

AOPA, in its February 2009 filing, also reminded EASA that the U.S. system of flight training has long set the training standard worldwide. AOPA stressed that the potential regulatory and trade consequences demonstrate the urgent need for a bilateral agreement on acceptance of pilot certification. Differing philosophies about training aside, both groups share a key goal: that of developing safe pilots. “For this reason, AOPA-US urges both EASA and the U.S. to formalize a bilateral agreement to reconcile the differences between this rule and the current U.S. rules regarding fight training. AOPA-US believes that U.S. and European licenses should be accepted in either direction with a minimum of additional requirements.”

[IO540]

Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.

They left out the best bit which is the IR conversion........ no conversion route proposed i.e. 50hrs dual, 7 exams, other crap. Converting a PPL is relatively easy.

AOPA-US believes that U.S. and European licenses should be accepted in either direction with a minimum of additional requirements.”

Well, yes, this has been on the table for 2-3 years now, but it looks like the USA has walked away from the table, since there is nothing in it for them.

[421C]

They left out the best bit which is the IR conversion........ no conversion route proposed i.e. 50hrs dual, 7 exams, other crap. Converting a PPL is relatively easy.



Not quite. EASA Part FCL Artcle 7.2:

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.

[IO540]

So... no reason why we cannot have a direct swap from an FAA IR to an EASA IR.

[md 600 driver]

Io540

Didn't know you worked nights and slept all day any way time to wake up and stop dreaming

If you have a nightmare next week you will possibly be awake lol

[172driver]

So, let's see:

EASA are here to harmonize / create pan-European aviation regulations.

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. (my bold)

But then defers decisions on training requirements to none other than - the Member States !

The mind boggles...... :ugh:

Taking this reference at face value (a dangerous thing, I know), then it would come down to the CAA (or DGAC or whoever) to cut through all the EASA crap and say, hey, we'll take some training to bring the pilot up to speed with Euro airspace and a couple of other variations from the US and then he/she's good to go. Likely to happen?

However, for the time being at least, they hide behind EASA, see the CAA doc re national licenses, etc referenced here somewhere (sorry, don't have time now to dig up the link again).

Then again, perhaps there is a cunning plan out there somewhere, as Ghengis alludes to. Let's hope he's right....

[IO540]

Even I (not a keen reader of tomes unless written by Tom Clancy (in his good 1980s cold war days) or F. Forsyth, etc) spotted that paragraph, very quickly.

It either means EASA is irrelevant in this context (because any NAA can just convert any ICAO papers to EASA ones, for 10 euros) or it means nothing.

Or maybe something in between (got to get a prize for working that out ;) ).

Was this put in to allow an FAA to EASA conversion route, to defuse (at the all-important national level) the vast amount of ***t which everybody with a brain knew would hit the fan?

One has to realise that the NAAs must have already done a deal with EASA on what will happen, in exchange for supporting EASA. I say this because the EASA response listings include respondes from loads of NAAs, which is simply bizzare because these organisations are not reduced to writing to EASA via the website comment forms :ugh: The only possible reason for say the DGAC to write such a response on the website is as a cover for having already done a deal under the table with EASA - on matters of interest to France. If the DGAC had not written the web response, it would look like they did a deal under the table :)

The answers are all here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister).

[Justiciar]

So different NAAs will apply different rules for converting the same licence. Brilliant. So much for harmonisation. Conceivably the requirement could be no more than pass the exams and take the test, as in S. Africa.

[IO540]

Or an oral exam and a flight test, as in some other places in Europe (though not leading to a JAR-FCL CPL/IR).

After all, the words repeatedly used are "demonstrate knowledge", never "sit X exams", so an oral exam is perfect, and to demonstrate flying competence you do a flight.

On the face of it, this could never happen in Europe, because it goes so much against the grain here, but

(a) it already does happen in some places in Europe;

(b) it used to happen in a few places in JAR-FCL Europe, until JAA bosses found out and stopped it (Ireland)

(c) it would defuse the N-reg mayhem; there is already a proposal dealing with the long term parking measures, and it isn't too onerous, and a license conversion would deal with the rest.

It takes just one country to do this, for say 1000 euros...

[IO540]

Going back to the doc
http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_100

on page 8 (case: privately used N-reg) it says

>CASE 3: Aircraft registered in a third country used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community.
....
>· For other than complex motor-powered aircraft:

the aircraft shall have to a type-certificate issued in accordance
with ICAO Annex 8;

the aircraft shall hold a CofA in accordance with ICAO Annex 8;

the operating organisation shall ensure that aircraft are maintained
by a qualified maintenance organisation complying with the requirements of ICAO Annex 6.

i.e. an ICAO TC is required, but in the table on page 9 it says an EASA Type Certificate is required.

Have I missed something, or is it a typo?

My suspicion is that EASA intended privately operated non-complex (meaning SE and ME pistons and SE turboprops, under 5700kg, etc - this is defined in the above doc) foreign regs to merely require an ICAO TC.

Does anybody know where the Jetprop falls in this? I know many have been registered in (I think) Netherlands so the PT6 mod must be grandfathered into EASA, and of course the PA46 Malibu does have an EASA TC. The Jetprop does not have a TC as such, AFAIK; it is still a PA46 Malibu, isn't it?

Edit: the text mentioned by 421C above

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.

to me reads that no reduction is allowed on any exam passes. This is in line with present conversion options and presents a major chunk of the objections to the EASA proposal, because a CPL/IR would have 14 exams to do.

[Pace]

because a CPL/IR would have 14 exams to do.

10540

That is the biggest hurdle. Young guys making a career take 6 months full time study to complete.

Distance learning if you are the type who will set aside X hours a day for 1 to 2 years and have the motivation to do so may complete.

Work, family matters, lifestyle changes, age etc can all impact distant learning so that the student from starting off motivated never finishes.

Motivation is the Key. The young pilot who is building a career in Europe is motivated towards being an airline pilot and that is what drives him through all this study material, a lot of which is totally irrelevant.

What motivation does an experienced N reg Captain have to get licences to do something he is already doing safely and professionaly who may be in his 50s and thinking is it worth starting again?

I know of one such Captain, very experienced and capable who went to convert to JAA. He was the type who I thought would do it but he gave up after a year when his wife developed cancer.

What should be required is a differences exam and study material for that as well as an IR flight test with at most a pre test flight test for a signoff to do the real one.

But it wont happen sadly.

Pace

[englishal]

From AOPA US again...Looks like this is stiring up a fuss over there too.

Safety or Politics?

October 6, 2010 by Bruce Landsberg

Most U.S. pilots have never heard of EASA – the European Aviation Safety Agency. Their motto is “Your Safety is our Mission” but in my view, as least as far as light GA is concerned, they sometimes create solutions in search of a problem. And sometimes it is done out of frustration with our political system.

I’ve had the privilege of working with the International AOPA (IAOPA) for a number of years and have participated over a decade in IAOPA conventions. I always come away with a new-found appreciation for the freedom to fly that we have in the U.S. Despite some recent encroachments, GA here is generally much better off here than in the rest of the world. Believe it or not - it is much more affordable and less complex.

EASA has just proposed to require holders of U.S. pilot certificates to also get a European Instrument rating to operate IFR for Part 91 flights on the Continent. The logical question is, “Have there been accidents or incidents by U.S. pilots where the probable cause was due to a misunderstanding of IFR European flight procedures?”

To my knowledge there is NO data to support this concern – zero, zip, nada. You should know that the Air Safety Institute has offered to maintain an international database and report annually just as we do in the U.S. with The Nall Report. So far, there has been no answer.

So why this sudden concern about U.S. IFR pilots? Glad you asked! It seems that in 2008 there was a bi-lateral agreement proposed between the U.S. and EASA that called for the joint recognition of flight crew certification, air carrier operating certificates and maintenance facilities. Seemed reasonable especially in light of no conflicting operational data.

However, concern was voiced from some U.S. labor sources that off shore repair shops might be substandard and hence would require FAA oversight. Was there any systemic data to support that contention? Again, not to my knowledge. Understandably, that was a deal-breaker for the Europeans. The response was, “OK, if you can’t trust our shops – guess we can’t trust your pilots!”

The potential ramifications are enormous. Thousands of U.S. registered aircraft would be grounded in Europe. To obtain an EASA IFR rating it would require seven (7) knowledge tests and a flight check. Some pilots would attempt VFR when they needed to be in the IFR system.

One of the biggest impediments to safety and common sense is politics. Economics and fairness is also important and those need to be judged on their merits but wrapping them in the golden mantle of safety is disingenuous. Settle those differences honorably on the economic and political playing field.

IAOPA and AOPA have been engaged since 2008 although this is just now coming to a head and there has been a direct and forceful response. If there was ever a time for pilots to band together with their Association this is it. In the immortal words of Thomas Paine, “If we do not hang together we shall surely hang separately.”



Bruce Landsberg
President, AOPA Air Safety Foundation

[IO540]

Good work :ok:

However I am not sure that

However, concern was voiced from some U.S. labor sources that off shore repair shops might be substandard and hence would require FAA oversight. Was there any systemic data to support that contention? Again, not to my knowledge. Understandably, that was a deal-breaker for the Europeans. The response was, “OK, if you can’t trust our shops – guess we can’t trust your pilots!”

is the whole story.

There are persistent reports that the FAA walked away from signing the treaty because it would have required the USA to allow foreign license use within the USA - something difficult for them to swallow in the present post-9/11 climate. As we all know, the USA hands out validations easily, accepts all foreign ICAO training towards any US license, etc, etc, but EASA pretends this doesn't exist.

The other thing is that there is now some US law restricting the setting up of FAA Repair Stations abroad. This is not applicable to private flying (you need a RS only for the 2-yearly altimeter/static check, which is why "everybody" travels to IAE at Cranfield) but it is AIUI applicable to AOC aircraft. EASA threw in the big commercial stuff in with the small private stuff, and the baby got chucked out with the bathwater.

[IO540]

A good article here (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-06/EASA_Rules_threaten_international_General_Aviation) by Pilot und Flugzeug

[Fuji Abound]

I actually don’t see a problem with Europe wanting control of its own citizens. I can’t think of any other arena where we would be happy for someone to be regulated by overseas laws. It is a little like arguing that lawyers qualified in the States or Bongo land should be able to practice here. I hear you saying, ah but aviation is different because of its international component. However, while that is true of international commercial aviation, it isn’t true so far as light GA is concerned. As much as I would wish otherwise I find it difficult to rationalise the alternative.

On the other hand I strongly object to EASA’s failure (so far at least) to provide a realistic IR for GA pilot’s modelled on the FAA system, the very reason for driving the pilots onto the N reg in the first place. Moreover, I also cannot rationalise allowing pilots to operate N reg in Europe one moment but not the next without realistically accommodating existing pilots in the “new” system. In that regard EASA’s proposals are fundamentally flawed.

In short EASA has gone about this in the wrong way even if I have to admit that their may be justification in their aims.

[Justiciar]

It is a little like arguing that lawyers qualified in the States or Bongo land should be able to practice here

Fuji:

There is a relatively straightforward foreign lawyer conversion process called the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test, which has been in place for some years. Of course, laws and practice vary from county to country: the skills of flying are universal and have to be since foreign based pilots regularly fly into the EU for commercial air transport reasons. These pilots will be unaffected by the new regulations, which is what makes the whole conversion and validation process so absurd, given that they wil in general apply to areas with least risk. None of the TK which may have to be absorbed by a 15000 hour foreign pilot wishing to convert has anything to do with safety and precious little to do with operatiol matters either. At least with lawyers the knowledge law and practice needed to convert is relevant!

The point about the regulations is that they are not directed at citizens (which is allowed by the Convention) but apply to operators on the basis of whether they are established in the EU or not. American pilots with american licences working for american companies which have aircraft which happen to be based in (operated from) the EU are likely to be caught by these provision. Depending on the sphere of operations of the companies concerned it is not difficult to image a move of operations to Switzerland, Norway, Turkey, Morocco .....

EASA shows every sign of wanting to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of the world and either doesn't realise or doesn't care about the commercial impact of what it is proposing. They have a track record of this as does Europe in general. Reading about the development of the new Kestral Turbo prop recently, it was very notable that EU/EASA and CAA bureaucracy ensured that the aircraft (originally conceived by Richard Noble and his team at Farnborough) ended up being developed in the US, where jobs have been created at the expense of the UK. We apparently never learn anything in this country or in Europe with a result that technical inovation is stifled and goes to the US or the far east.

[Pace]

Fuji they are infact not getting control as EASA licences hold no validity on FAA aircraft.
It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe. EASA will not gain control of their residents in that sense.

What they are tying to do are trying to do is to block 10,000 Europeans from wanting to fly N Reg by making things as difficult as possible.

To drive them out that way. They might as well regulate that all FAA licenced european residents must wear red tights while flying that would hold as much legality as what they are doing but there would be a rush to the lingerie shop to comply.

Control they will not have in the sense you mean as the licences have no legal basis on N Reg. They are purely finding a way to make N reg unattractive to European residents and to kill them off that way.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Justiciar

the skills of flying are universal and have to be since foreign based pilots regularly fly into the EU for commercial air transport reasons.

Actually while that may be true, there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I appreciate there are few FAA PPLs flying in Europe who have not been through European PT BUT it would be entirely possible for a private FAA IR holder to fly solo in European airspace never having done so before - if a little silly.

In reality this would never happen for an ATPL, because almost every operator requires the pilot to have a number of line checks before being set free in European airspace.

Arguably the challenges of flying solo outside controlled airspace are greater because OCAS the regulatory enviroment is very different in Europe.

The point about the regulations is that they are not directed at citizens

I think you are very wrong. The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.

Pace

It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe.

but that is the point - it will. European courts are very ill placed to rule on whether or not a pilot has complied with the FARs, but far better placed if their ruling is based on EU legislation. Moreover doubtless the regulators believe the FAA might be less willing to act against a pilot resident in Europe where it would be expensive and difficult to expedite.

I dont like it any more than you.

[Justiciar]

It will not be EASA who controls matters if the aircraft crashes in Europe

Leaving to one side the issue of EASA/EU not being a treaty signatory, the state where an accident occurs has responsibilty for investigation (Article 26), so I am not sure the point is well made!

as the licences have no legal basis on N Reg

That is not I am afraid true. Nothing in the ICAO convention absolves any pilot from complying with local rules and if local rules say that you need an EU licence to fly in EU airspace that rule has to be complied with, especially if local rules state that an FAA licence granted to its citizens are not recognised (not, byt the way what the EASA draft says). Hence, a pilot may be legally required to hold two licences and yes that could give rise to some interesting conflict of law issues if say there is a conflict of operational rules; the preferred view would be that the rules of the state whose airspace is being used prevail.

This is not what is currently happening though with the draft regulations. Linking the validity of licences in a given airspace to where the operator happens to be established has no basis that I can determine in any of the Conventions, other than the right for a state to impose its own rules in its territory. It is though a receipe for confusion and conflict, as we are seeing.

[Pace]

Fuji

You cannot take an EASA licence, type rating and jump into an FAA aircraft and fly it. EASA holds no jurisdiction over the FAA aircraft the FAA does and still will should this ever be passed in its present form.

Yes EASA could take you to court and charge you with not having the legal requirement of holding an EASA licence which they require you to do. But for operational control over an FAA aircraft they might as well regulate that you wear Red Tights ;)

That is really the point I am making we are legally being forced to hold licences which are themselves illegal on the aircraft being flown if you get my drift.
In That case any court would have to look at the licences which are relevant to the aircraft in say a crash scenario as the EASA ones are operationally illegal.
I do accept that they are legally required to allow a European resident to fly in the aircraft in Europe but not to operate the aircraft.
Maybe I am not making myself clear :confused: In that case maybe the insurance is valid as you would comply with all the legal licences but you would be charged with not holding EASA licences. That is seperate to the flying licences required to fly an FAA aircraft.
How could you for instance be charged with endangering an aircraft by not holding say the required medical or instrument currency if both your EASA medical and EASA licences are illegal on that aircraft? You could only look at your FAA medical and FAA Currency to determine that!

The medical is a good example. Say you held a current FAA medical but failed the EASA one and as such did not hold EASA licences? or you were ramp checked in june with your EASA Medical running out in may while your FAA was good till december! could you be charged with not holding a valid medical on the FAA aircraft? Your EASA medical is not valid on that aircraft so the answer has to be NO!

Your violation on EASA licences would be a seperate charge to those required to fly the aircraft and would purely be not holding EASA licences or wearing Red tights ;)

Pace

[IO540]

A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.
That is true but the difference between UK and US training (applied to European airspace) is far smaller than the vast gulf in operational knowledge which exists between what UK PPL training delivers and what is needed to fly from A to B in the UK with any confidence ;)

The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.
I am not convinced of that. This proposal has every sign of politics of envy, and pandering to the standard bunch of anti-American axe grinders within the FTO and NAA regulatory circles. And the really obvious stuff, which provokes the strongest emotions if you don't like the USA and don't like rich people, is foreign reg jet operations, and many/most of those will be unaffected because they can shift their "operator residence" around. Private N-reg pilots are barely noticeable and are probably outnumbered by the foreign reg jets. Certainly in much of Europe they are totally outnumbered; for example Greece has ~ 200 pistons and ~ 200 jets. Almost everywhere I land around Europe I see at least one or two N-reg jets parked where I park. In some places it is pretty depressing; I recall landing at Granada LEGR and every Spanish-reg plane had flat tyres with grass growing around them; with mine and one other N-reg the regulators there must feel pretty sick but what are they thinking? Do they not realise they have brought this about directly themselves?

European courts are very ill placed to rule on whether or not a pilot has complied with the FARs, but far better placed if their ruling is based on EU legislation

Agreed but the present EU regulatory system is crap for private flying, which is why so many have gone foreign.


You cannot take an EASA licence, type rating and jump into an FAA aircraft and fly it

You can but only to the extent permitted by FAR 61.3 (OK in the airspace of whoever issued your license; not very useful).

[Justiciar]

Actually while that may be true, there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I am sure that you are right. The same applies the other way, but that does not justify 200 pages of rules. I have an FAA piggy back licence, so I can in theory fly with just a BFR. I am sure in practice no FBO will let me loose until they are satisfied I am familiar with the local rules and procedures as well as local terrain and weather. In reality I get the impression that in the US there is an element of trust, by which I mean they trust me not to be a prat and fly when I am not sufficiently familiar with local procedures.

I think you are very wrong. The whole attempt (even if it may be flawed) was to direct the regulations at private pilots with N reg aircraft based permanently in Europe and not any one else.

Article 4(1)(c) of the basic regulation says absolutely nothing about nationality or citizenship beyond referring to where an operator is established. I agree that the rule seems aimed at EU citizens holding FAA paperwork, but as drafted the rule equally covers a US, Australian, Canadian, South African etc citizen or company operating an N reg aircraft and using an FAA licence, so will hit any business established in the EU and operating on an N reg, even if the business is non aviation and the aircraft is used for internal business use and even if the pilots live outside the EU.

[Pace]

10540

You can but only to the extent permitted by FAR 61.3 (OK in the airspace of whoever issued your license; not very useful).

Not in an aircraft requiring a type rating you cant. I did say type rating :E

Pace

[hum]

Great piece of work passed to me this morning; think it deserves a widespread read... :ok:

here is the link

http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-07/FAA_and_Europe_Safety_Record}

Meanwhile I'm with Pace and the others, off to buy red tights and get a fish licence for my 'Halibut - variant' N-Reg aircraft ;-)

The European Regulators dismal safety-record on General Aviation, and why EASA doesn't do a thing about it

With EASAs frontal attack against US pilots and US aircraft flying in Europe causing a severe backlash from pretty much the entire General Aviation Community, more and more lawmakers and media-representatives, who look at the US-registered aircraft in Europe ask themselves one simple question: "What’s not to like?"

In almost any objective category of safety, the FAA-regulated system does produce safer flights, fewer accidents and even more cost-effective solutions than it’s heavily regulated european counterpart. Incredibly, instead of learning from a clearly safer and more efficient system, EASA dwells in chauvinistic protectionism and - in many areas - clings to it’s long since repudiated approach of maximum barriers for advanced flight training and higher pilot qualification.

This is not the standard case of an industry resenting change and fighting regulation just because "all was well in the past". This is the case of concerned citizens screaming at an indifferent regulator for change, longing for safer standards and more effective methods of training and demanding the regulatory application of lessons learned all over the aviation-world through blood, sweat and tears.

If we agree, that a system, that produces fewer dead bodies per hour flown or mile traveled is somehow superior to a system, that results in more casualties for the same services rendered, the following examination might be of interest.

General Aviation encompasses all flying activity other than military and airlines. Glider-Pilots and Business-Jets are General Aviation operators, just as individuals flying small four-seat single or twin engine aircraft.

Applying meaningful statistics to a field of such diversity is notoriously difficult. We want to avoid getting bogged down in discussions whether one type of accident is underreported or another type of operation is overly represented. Hence, we'll use a very simple and also very important indicator: Dead people. Assuming, that the reporting-rate of fatal accidents is almost 100% in the EU and in the US, this will make us least vulnerable to statistical fudging or blurring.

Fortunately, we have precise and excellent data on fatal accidents:

In the US, the total number of fatal accidents for 2008 was 282 (Source: Nall-Report 09, page 5). This includes all aircraft registered in the US or flying in the US below 5,7 tonnes which can be used as a practical delimiter to the airline world. With this number, the year 2008 was an average year. Not particularly good, but also not too bad.

In Germany, the total number of fatal accidents for 2008 was 42 (Source: Annual Report German Air Accident Investigation Board for 2008, Table 2, Page 10). This also includes all aircraft below 5,7 tonnes registered in Germany and thereby operated under unified european JAR licensing and maintenance rules. 42 also is a rather average year.

While one part of our contemplation is well known and simple to compare, the other part is not. What's going to be our denominator to asses the accident rate? Hours flown would be the ideal criteria. Hours flown would insulate us from different kinds of usage (e.g. transportation vs. recreational flying), but a reliable number for hours flown is not available. For Germany, there is no such ascertainment at all, and in the US the number is an estimation.

However, the factor for the absolute number of fatal accidents already is revealing: 42 fatal accidents under the German regulator vs. 282 fatal accidents under the US-system means a factor of 6,7.

It can safely be assumed, that the total number of General Aviation hours flown in the US is much, much higher than 6,7 times the number in Germany. So we know, that sitting in an american private- or business-aircraft is safer than sitting in a german one. We just don't know how much safer.

Without taking the reader onto a wild trip into statistical never-land, another simple inspection will give us an idea. The number of airplanes registered. This number is also precisely known: The number of US-registered airplanes for 2008 averaged at 379.000 (Source: FAA Airplane Registry Database Download). The number of aircraft registered in Germany in 2008 totaled 21.327 (Source: LBA). A factor of 17,7!

Looking at the number of licensed pilots yields a similar picture. Excluding the glider pilots (due to a national particularity, they make almost 50% of German airmen), Germany had issued 50.973 pilot-certificates of all levels in 2008 (Source: LBA). The US comes up with 613.746 active certificates in 2008 (Source: FAA Pilot Statistics Tables 1 and 8). Subtracting 29.214 American glider-pilots, we get 584.532 US pilots to compare them to 50.973 German aviators [Note 1]. A factor of 11,5!

The stringent deduction is alarming. Rounding all numbers in favor of the Europeans, 11 times as many pilots and 17 times as many airplanes in the US only produce 7 times as many fatal accidents compared to the German system under common european JAR-rules, which will be implemented and even tightened by EASA.

No amount of statistical rectification, adjustment or clearing up will be able to overcome this enormous gap.

Assuming for a moment, that german pilots are nowhere more suicidal or lightheaded than their american colleges, the inescapable conclusion is:
There is a lot of room for improvement in the European system!

The interesting question is: Where?

The author does not claim to know the exact reasons for the increased lethality of General Aviation under european rules. The hardware (airplanes, engines, navigation-instruments) used in both systems is almost identical.

Looking at the two systems from the point of view of decades of first hand flying- and training-experience in both worlds amongst our research-staff, some striking differences come to light. Holding pilot- and instructor-certificates in both systems, we feel competent to at least relate some observations.

I. Instrument Rated Pilots

The first and most obvious difference is the minuscule number of instrument rated pilots under european JAR-rules. An instrument rating is an add-on license, that a pilot obtains to fly safely in clouds and in bad weather under the guidance of Air Traffic Control. If the pilot does not hold this rating, he has to stay in visual conditions, outside clouds and in good visibility. If he inadvertently gets into a cloud he simply lacks experience and training to safely fly through or out again. The fact, that 99,9% of commercial passenger transport is done under instrument-rules by instrument-rated pilots, speaks to the utility of this add-on-qualification.

Flying "VFR into IMC" means a non-instrument-rated pilot get’s into adverse weather conditions. These accidents are frequent and the resulting collision with earth is almost always deadly. 14,1 percent (2008) of fatal accidents fall into that category, forming the single biggest primary cause of death in european General Aviation.

Of 31.219 private airplane pilots in Germany only 1.667 held this qualification. That’s 5,5%. The number is an embarrassment, plain and simple. You could easily summon all german "PPL/IR" pilots in a Bierzelt and probably even afford to buy them a drink.
Paying for the 57.422 US instrument-rated private pilots (27%) to have a good time would be a much larger investment. The number gets even starker, if you take into account the US commercial- and ATP-rated pilots holding only a private medical certificate, hence only exercising private pilot privileges (something very common in the US, but legally not possible in the EU).
113.212 airline- and commercial-pilots with instrument-ratings fall into that category, bringing the number of instrument-rated pilots engaged solely in General Aviation up to 172.634. That translates to 48,1% of all US airplane pilots holding a private-pilot-medical certificate!
It follows, the comparison between GA-pilots holding the vital instrument qualification in the US and pilots of the same skill- and experience-level in Germany is 48 percent against 5,5 percent!

The main reason is not cost. Though flying in Europe is clearly more expensive than in the US, the amount of practical training required and the content of that training is almost identical and expenditures for travel and lodging in America quickly offset any savings from lower flying-costs.

The main reason is access. Three major administrative barriers stand between an normal General Aviation pilot and his instrument rating:

An overly inflated theory syllabus. A private pilot wishing to obtain an instrument rating to safer conduct his flights has to learn a multitude of subject-matters far beyond the capabilities of his airplane or the application of his license: Turbine-engines, electrical-systems of airliners and aeromedical-content stuffed into the european instrument rating not only are applicable mostly to commercial operations, they're also redundant, because if the pilot ever wishes to fly any larger and faster aircraft where this knowledge would be useful, he has to undergo additional training and examinations anyway.
Classroom-Lessons: The overinflated theory has - by law - to be taught mostly in classroom lessons - hundreds of them; and they are only available at a handful of schools. This is hardly compatible with the daily life of a professional employee or businessman able to muster the funds required for the training. There has to be a way to study the required content in a time-flexible manner. The FAA allows this, and it’s common in many other professional fields here in Europe.
While classroom lessons might well be effective for straight-through-training of airline pilots, it’s rigid schedule proves prohibitive for anyone trying to get a job, a business, a family and maybe additional pilot-qualifications into just one life.
Aircraft: Under the current system, training for the instrument rating in one’s own aircraft is next to impossible. That not only increases cost, it’s also counterproductive, because in most cases training in one’s own airplane with the familiar navigation-instruments and systems is not only faster, but yields a much safer pilot in the end.
Any aircraft approved for instrument flying can also be used for instrument training. There are no modifications as in driving school vehicles or the like. The barrier is purely administrative, maybe also protectionist.

Very simple and cost-effective rule changes would go a long way towards addressing these three barriers. EASA is attempting this task in FCL.008, but the proposals discussed therein are meek and and fall even short of the three simple and most urgent steps stated above.

II. Air Traffic Control Infrastructure

Air Traffic Control in Europe is geared towards airline-operations. Small local airfields rarely provide instrument takeoff- and landing procedures which would allow General Aviation pilots to fly in and out in less than perfect weather. That’s in spite of the fact that since the approval and introduction of GPS-instrument-approaches 15 years ago, the cost of establishing an instrument takeoff or landing is mostly paperwork (no ground installations required).
That Europe neglects this paperwork whereas in the US an instrument-approach is available to almost any tiny airstrip, is a shameful shortcoming of our infrastructure.

In Germany, it is due to a multitude of administrative requirements, that airfield-operators can not afford to provide such a safe procedure. Some of these requirements make sense for commercial aviation, most are utterly over the top for personal and business-flights and nowhere required by international standards set through ICAO.

Moreover, properly licensed pilots flying visually en-route and wishing to change to an instrument-flight due to deteriorating weather-conditions are actually prosecuted and punished
http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2009-08-09/IFR_Air_Filing}

by the Civil Aviation Authority whereas this safety-decision is exactly what the FAA expects of any responsible airman.
The kookiness of that particular twist defies the imagination. It’s like outlawing brakes on the Autobahn, because you weren’t supposed to go that fast in the first place.

III. Inconsistencies

Also, flying on instruments in uncontrolled airspace not managed by Air Traffic Control is not allowed in many european countries, whereas others such as Great Britain specifically encourage it and have even created a license to allow just that.
The ramifications of this ban are directly related to the lack of instrument takeoff- and landing-procedures, because most smaller airports used by General Aviation pilots are located in uncontrolled airspace that is not managed by anyone.

IV. Flight Instructors and their abilities

In the FAA-system, a flight instructor is required to hold at least a commercial pilots license and an instrument rating, thus insuring the instructor is not one, but two steps ahead of his student. The european regulator only requires theoretical commercial-pilot knowledge and does not mandate an instrument rating at all from it’s primary disseminators of knowledge and experience.

We're not proposing to simply raise the requirement over night, because that would effectively cease pilot training in the EU, we’re proposing to reduce administrative barriers to the instrument-qualification so that future european flight instructors at least stand a fair chance to obtain the same qualifications and skills as their american counterparts.

Also, every US certified flight instructor, all 93.202 of them, can take their students all the way to the certificate or rating sought. The US flight instructor is licensed to teach theory and practical flying and also authorized to recommend his student for examination and the practical check-flight.
The european instructor can do none of this. He can only act as part of an approved and highly bureaucratic Training Organization, where the student has to be formally registered, approved and put into a curriculum – thus further limiting the accessibility of training and knowledge.

Finally, the US system requires the applicant for any certificate or rating to undergo a thorough oral examination of aeronautical knowledge, that – even in the case of a lowly private pilots license – can take 5 to 8 hours of questioning, testing and demonstrating theoretical knowledge and understanding. This is – by all accounts – a grueling, but a necessary experience.
The european regulator requires none of that and rather relies on a written multiple-choice examination only, thus allowing the aeronautical knowledge examination to be degraded into an exercise in rote-learning.

Summary

EASA addresses none of these issues in it’s regulatory opinion that will be before the Comission on October 14th. To the contrary, EASA, in what can only be described as a fit of administrative rage, proposes to effectively ban US licensed pilots and US registered aircraft from the continent.

The common european JAR-system of licenses, in place now for 10 years, has failed to even come close to the US-system in terms of safety delivered for General Aviation.

The main reasons for Europe’s dismal safety-record are not higher costs or ineptness of the actors, but mostly bureaucratic barriers to advanced pilot qualifications and continuative training.

EASA is now proposing to fight this very problem with yet more bureaucracy. We do not believe this will be successful.

There are other issues such as the legitimate fears of Flight Schools facing competition from their clearly predominant US counterparts or from suddenly freed free-roaming flight instructors making training available on a personal and flexible basis. These fears are justified and need to be addressed.
The more far sighted amongst the schools however, have long since realized that the medium and long term solution to the industries problems has to lie in the expansion of the pilot population and not in the ever more vicious battle over the last two or three instrument students standing.

In the interest of safety we therefor call on EASA to:

Short-Term: Immediately lower the administrative barriers for private pilot instrument qualification by:
Reducing the theoretical syllabus to the required breadth for General Aviation pilots and putting advanced content into the requirements for advanced licenses where it belongs.
Permitting self-study of the theoretical subject matters, checked by a pre-exam that can be administered by any qualified flight instructor. Upon successful completion of the pre-exam the flight instructor can recommend the student for the actual written exam.
Permitting training – at least for the instrument rating – in any properly certified aircraft, irrespective of where it’s registered or owned.
Medium-Term: Mandate and fund a unified Air Traffic Control infrastructure and regulatory environment, that allows for the cost effective creation of GPS based instrument takeoff- and landing-procedures (called IFR departures and approaches) to the most commonly used General Aviation airfields within the Community.
Long-Term: Mandate new flight instructors to hold at least a commercial pilots license and an instrument rating, and allow them to give training within the limits of their own instructor-qualifications independently from training organizations or solely bureaucratic umbrella organizations.

While these changes are implemented, accept as equal FAA private pilot licenses and FAA instrument ratings, to allow pilots to quickly and cost-effectively improve their qualifications and skills while Europe catches up.

[mm_flynn]

there are significant operational differences between here and America. A bare PPL (and for that matter a PPL with an IR) will find operations in Europe very different so far as NOTAM gathering, weather, when, where and how to file a FP is concerned, the arrangement of airspace and a whole list of things I might mention that only become apparent if you have flown both sides of the Pond.

I think the differences between various European countries are as large as the difference between any one European Country and the US - with one exception. At least in Europe you could reasonably be taught that every country is different and where to find the differences (I know we are not taught this, but we could be); however, in the US you would never think to do so unless you were on the Mexican or Canadian boarder!

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

Please dont misconstrue my comments. I am approaching this from an entirely theoretical point of view. In other words in theory you can understand why Europe might want control of its citizens - I have no doubt that in reality the proposed changes are driven by a host of other reasons.

Equally, we all know the training here is truly dreadful for operational purposes. Most schools teach you how to fly an aircraft, not how to operate an aircraft in a useful way. Of course the Americans are much better at that stuff as well in my experience. From my ideology veiwpoint of course that would all change as well, in which event EASA would be better placed to argue we teach our resident PPLs how to operate an aircraft in EASA airspace, which the Americans dont, and that is why you need to have an EASA license.

Justicair

I am not discriminating. As a pilot that has flown a lot both here and in America operating an aircraft in America for the first time is also very different. Of course the Feds might well argue that if you pitch up in the States with a European license you need at least a 61.75 and a biannual to go flying. (Unless perhaps you can find an aircraft lurking on the G reg - which almost certainly you cant). In theory at least the biannual and the 61.75 will weed out those who do not have the operational knowledge to work in the US. Over here historically you could get out at Heathrow with a FAA license, pitch up at Fairoaks, borrow a friend's Cirrus and fly to Glasgow, never having operated an aircraft in European airspace before. Would the legislation as proposed prevent this - who knows, but in theory if it did that might make sense. It might also make sense if it prevented a EU resident taking a two week FAA PPL in Florida, returning home, buying an N reg aircraft, and setting off for Spain without any further instruction (which he could legally do at the moment).

Pace

As IO540 says you can do just as I have outlined above. In my ideaology this is exactly what might concern a European regulator. I doubt they are really worried about you in a type rated aircraft because they know there are a whole host of other checks and balances that should ensure you are "safe". In other words you are not representative. It is to say the least unfortunate enough for you to be "caught" by the proposed regulations.

Interstingly in reality neither is my example representative. As I said earlier the vast majority of EU based pilots operating on the N register have been through the EU FT treadmill at some point. That is partly the weakness of my argument. However, regulations are very often directed at the minority who "abuse" the system, not the majority, who do not abuse the system whether or not the regualtions were in place. For example in the pre insurance days pretty much everyone sensibly was insured.

Pace - it is a good try, but I dont follow your argument about EASA illegally excercising control over N reg aircraft. Take an example. The FAA may say you can land in France as PIC when you are 90. EASA might say you cant. If a 95 year old lands an aircraft in Paris which is on the N reg all that would happen is the FAA would point out so far as they are concerned the flight was perfectly legal, but EASA would prosecute the pilot on the basis he was flying illegally. I suspect the prosecution would succeed.

MM-Flyn - you make an excellent point which I can only counter by saying that most European pilots dont go far. It is a strange one, but that is the reality. I guess EASA would also say that is the whole point for their being! - to lessen the differences within Europe so one license is good for everywhere.

You appreciate that I dont believe a lot of this - as I have already said the European FT system does not teach you to operate an aircraft throughout European airspace - but in theory it should, and I suspect the Regulators would never accept it doesnt. :O

The purpose of my post is because ultimately these are the points which we might need to counter. Our arguments must be properly founded otherwise they do not carry as much weight.

It is simply no good saying forget controlling Euro citizens - that is not your concern, when the whole basis of the European mentality is to do just this. On the other hand if we argue there are better (and safer) ways to achieve the same objective I think we establish the moral high ground.

[Cows getting bigger]

I'm left wondeing what the signatories of the Chicago Convention intended.

The Convention on International Civil Aviation set forth the purpose of ICAO:

"WHEREAS the future development of international civil aviation can greatly help to create and preserve friendship and understanding among the nations and peoples of the world, yet its abuse can become a threat to the general security; and

WHEREAS it is desirable to avoid friction and to promote that co-operation between nations and peoples upon which the peace of the world depends;

THEREFORE, the undersigned governments having agreed on certain principles and arrangements in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner and that international air transport services may be established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically;

Have accordingly concluded this Convention to that end."

[Fuji Abound]

Cows getting Bigger

EASA would probably count the number of times the word "international" was used and point out this has nothing to do with interantional ops - it is about regulating our citizens within the national borders of Euro world.

[hum]

The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) was an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who had agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures. This co-operation was intended to provide high and consistent standards of safety and a "level playing field" for competition in Europe. Much emphasis was placed on harmonising the JAA regulations with those of the USA.

Yeah, right....:rolleyes:

[mm_flynn]

I took the time to put my down thoughts on this in a clear and constructive way to my MEPs. The substance of my comments was

The proposal in front of you for voting next week, while laudable, is flawed in fundamental respects as to its failure to address the known issues with instrument flying qualifications, its attempt to define regulation based on the concept of an operators residency, its fundamentally unreasonable (when compared to other developed nations) approach to validation or conversion as defined in Annex III. As it stands it will not enhance safety and in all likelihood will reduce the safety level in Europe.

You can use this (http://www.writetothem.com/write)handy link to look up and email your MEPs. Speed is of the essence as I understand they vote early next week.

[Pace]

I actually don’t see a problem with Europe wanting control of its own citizens. I can’t think of any other arena where we would be happy for someone to be regulated by overseas laws.

Fuji

This is what sparked my response as while it gives EASA a legal chip it doesnt give EASA the sort of control that i think you mean.

Yes of course they could prosecute a 90 year old for landing in Paris but they couldnt charge him for endangering the citizans of Paris if he met all the legal requirements of the aircraft he is flying.

If the FAA pilot holds a valid FAA medical but his EASA one has expired EASA cannot charge that pilot for flying without a valid medical because he holds one on the aircraft he is licenced to fly the FAA aircraft!
Infact his EASA medical isnt valid at all on that aircraft and would not be seen as valid by any court.
If it was the other way around and his FAA Medical had expired but his EASA was current then he would be charged with flying without a valid medical. You must see that?

His EASA medical is worthless on the FAA aircraft.

Hence why I say that EASA will not get the control over their citizens that I think you mean.

All EASA can do is to charge the pilot on a technicality which bares no relationship to the aircraft in the air.

They cannot charge him on any safety grounds only the technicality of flying the aircraft without the required USELESS EASA licences in the background

Pace

[Pace]

Hum

You have put a lot of effort into your letter I hope you will use it to good effect by sending it to the right people?

Pace

[Mike Cross]

Jan Brill, Managing Editor, Pilot und Flugzeug magazine has written an open letter to EASA illustrating the effects of EASA's proposals on FCL. It's well written and persuasive. If you know anyone of influence I suggest you send it to them.

You can find a download link for the letter on this page. (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=247)

[172driver]

Done. Let's hope it helps...... :suspect:

[Mike Cross]

Contact details for the Chair, Vice-Chairs and UK Members if the European Parliament Transportation Sub-Committee now added.
Open Letter to EASA (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=254)

[Pace]

Mike Only doubt with the open letter is that it may go above anyone but very aviation knowledgables heads.

But done too.

Can you really ring these people direct?

[421C]

Here are some thoughts on this I wrote elsewhere earlier today.

There appear to be 3 arguments against FRA:
1. the "principle" argument: the idea that EU citizens should be subject to EU regulation and not have a choice of an alternative 'flag of convenience'
2. the "analogy" argument: the comparison with, say, cars and driving
3. the "points scoring" argument: ie. we couldn't do this in the US with EU-registers etc etc and we'd have to notify the TSA of every flight etc etc

I think all these are utterly wrong. To support them, you sort of have to implicitly believe that regulation is there for its own sake - to have some kind of uniformity of regulating everything and everyone. What a depressing mentality that is. Surely the rationale for regulation is to serve a purpose: that the safety, economic/legal rights and welfare of citizens and businesses are enhanced and protected.

On these grounds, the analogies are irrelevant. We don't decide how to regulate cars based on boats or planes or anything else. We decide based on what is needed. The body of experience for aviation regulation is big enough that we can draw on it to decide what regulation Europe needs, without reference to other modes of transport.

Similarly, the principle argument is invalid. "Flags of convenience" get a bad name, I guess, because one thinks of ships with substandard safety and crew conditions. But why is "convenience" a bad thing when there are no negatives attached to it, and when our own flag is one of deep and unnecessary inconvenience? It seems to me fundamental that citizens should be free to do things which benefit them at no harm to anyone else, and that they are entitled to good regulation. FRA is a good thing which causes no harm, so why shouldn't we be allowed to to do it? Why shouldn't there be competition or choice between regulatory methods when such choice does not disadvantage 3rd parties? Why shouldn't EASA be forced to go back to the drawing board and design fit-for-purpose GA regulation if it wants to impose a monopoly?

The points scoring argument is the silliest. What does it matter even if the US banned all FRA? Surely the question of how EU citizens should be regulated is down to what serves their interests? What does it matter how the US chooses to regulate its citizens?

The FRA argument is simple one with, I believe, 2 factual underpinnings, either of which should be sufficient.
1. There is a proven model of FRA operation which is safe and has no adverse consequence to 3rd parties. Surely, in of itself this should be enough? Why fix things which aren't broken?
2. The European model fails to serve GA in the mainstream segment above the lightest sport aircraft and below charter jets. It failed pre JAA. It failed again with the JAA. EASA has failed to improve upon the JAA.

[Pace]

Fuji

Who ever asked us whether we wanted to be in Euroworld our currency thank god isnt ;)

Pace

[Pace]

421C

I dont want to go political but Euroland is motivated by the big state. I think regarding the UK 20% of jobs were created as government jobs many artificially.

Hence all the departments, sub departments etc The Big state will regulate regulate again and again.

Who pays for it all? The guy at the end of the chain and God he pays for it.

Euroland is the same.There are too many who cannot do anything else but regulate. The Eurostate. I think in the UK with the production of the 20% government jobs came 3000 new criminal offences. Ie you can become a criminal for doing 3000 new things you couldnt before.

There lies the problem.I flew for a company who went bankrupt trying to setup their own AOC.
I feel sorry for AOC OPS burdened with so much burocracy paperwork regulation.
Sadly that lot hasnt equalled improved safety! far from it the safety angle has gone down compared to the far less regulated part 135 FAA ops.

Sadly Europe doesnt know anything else and will carry on paying these groups of people to keep on churning out what they do because what else do they do with them all?

Sad they are damaging so many of our freedoms in the process.

Pace

[IO540]

Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing, nowt, zilch, that can be done about the Brussels gravy train which keeps this whole show on the road.

It is about 30 years too late for that.

The only thing which is going to work is pulling some serious "national interest" cards.

Let's say the Americans get p1ssed off and seriously threaten to call off talks on the already precarious Airbus tanker contract, some absolutely furious French/German person is going to make some very direct phone calls, and not to anybody at EASA. After all, this whole EU machine is not some computer; it is run by individual politicians who have to look after their own national interests. That is the key, and the only key.

[maxred]

That was a very well written post HUM. I have read all of this with great interest, given I am currently transferring my aircraft to the N reg. I have spent the last weeks talking with FAA/CAA/EASA et al. I have gleaned that not one of the individuals within the varied organisations have a clue about what each other is doing - this at ground level. The exception was a well knowledged FAA inspector in Fort Worth who told me that the FAA/EASA have a signed bi lateral agreement, with only one party holding the line - the FAA. EASA are basically doing as they wish - his words not mine. There are too numerous issues at stake here - licensing/registration/ratings/maintenance. All are being,or will be impacted. I spoke recently with a Spanair captain, who was totally pissed off with his lot. 90 hours rostered a month, difficult and multiple sectors, however, his main issue was that he was selling his light aircraft, due to 'to many difficulties with GA flying in Spain'!! Nothing depressed me more.

The current uk and european GA scene is a mess - maintenance organisations fighting for too little business, struggling to keep afloat, poor maintenance, poor regulatory body in the CAA, poor flight training in part because of the lack of business. The whole industry needs a look at from top to bottom. Perhaps, just perhaps, some good may come out of an EASA structure (I somehow doubt it) but if there were a galvaniser to rise from ANY decision on the 13/14th?????
All of the people will not be pleased all of the time, however, a middle ground will exist where some sense could be structured from all of this.

This is a watershed, and if ever it was important to get it right, it would be now. But it DOES need change.

[Fuji Abound]

I think all these are utterly wrong. To support them, you sort of have to implicitly believe that regulation is there for its own sake - to have some kind of uniformity of regulating everything and everyone.


421C

I dont think so. There are all sorts of reasons you could argue the FAA system is not perfect. For example there is some evidence that the absence of any requirment to demonstrate instrument competance (other than by self certification) is unsafe. EASA could adopt every aspect of the FARs except to require an instrument pilot to demonstrate competance by test every so often. Leaving aside for another day the debate about this specific example it would be reasonably difficult to argue based on the evidence EASA's view was unreasonable. EASA would be excercising regualtion over its own citizens in a different way to the FAA, but arguably in an equally justified way.

Such regualtion would support all of your criteria and would seem to me entirely reasonable (not that is what EASA is actually doing, although I guess some might argue otherwise).

Pace

If the FAA pilot holds a valid FAA medical but his EASA one has expired EASA cannot charge that pilot for flying without a valid medical because he holds one on the aircraft he is licenced to fly the FAA aircraft!

I am afraid I still dont follow your line of argument. EASA could say any pilot in command of an aircraft in European airspace regardless of the aircraft's flag must have an EASA medical. Why not? I appreciate EASA would make themselves so unpopular it would never happen but there are no interantional agreements of which I am aware that would prevent them doing just this.

I can think of a number of countries that will only validate an ICAO license if the holder has passed that countries air law examination.

[IO540]

Maxred

Does it need change?

It does need deregulation, if anything.

Part M has done nothing for safety but has increased costs and has allowed various crooks to charge for unnecessary paperwork and inspections.

Not a lot can be done about flight training, which is now paying the price of decades of delivering a product which is unfit for the purpose, on the basis that most people who get a PPL chuck it in pretty soon anyway (which they have always done, anyway).

I don't think the FAA or EASA have signed any kind of treaty as yet; in fact it appears that the process has broken down.

What are the difficulties in flying in Spain? I have flown there a fair bit (VFR and IFR) and apart from some dodgy ATC with ICAO Level minus 10 English, it seems OK. Perhaps not many places to fly to (compared with somebody living in southern UK) because to the N W S is basically nothing and to the E is France, the near bit of which has little to offer to a Spaniard, and you have to cross a big chunk of The Good The Bad and the Ugly wilderness to get there :)

Fuji

For example there is some evidence that the absence of any requirment to demonstrate instrument competance (other than by self certification) is unsafeI have never seen any evidence of that. It has been widely debated over years. It is a tossup between doing some real IFR and clocking up the FAA 6/6 approaches, and flying potentially very little and then passing the IR check. I have met plenty of people who had trouble maintaining the FAA 6/6 currency, but even the lowest-time JAA IR pilot has no evident trouble passing the annual check. I don't see either system objectively better, but I can see an annual IR checkride being absolutely mandatory under the European "pilots are crooks and we have to regularly test them so they can't cheat" psychology.

The FAA system does not use self certification. You have to fly the approaches. Unless of course one forges one's logbook, but if somebody is doing that, we are looking at loads of fake ATPs flying 747s... probably there are some, but they will be good enough after a bit of RHS time :)

[Pace]

I am afraid I still dont follow your line of argument. EASA could say any pilot in command of an aircraft in European airspace regardless of the aircraft's flag must have an EASA medical. Why not? I appreciate EASA would make themselves so unpopular it would never happen but there are no interantional agreements of which I am aware that would prevent them doing just this.

I can think of a number of countries that will only validate an ICAO license if the holder has passed that countries air law examination.

Fuji :ugh: YES EASA can pass a law that every pilot must have a EASA Class 1 medical that is their right to do equally they can pass a law that all pilots must run around the block three times a day before they fly.

BUT BUT BUT That medical has no standing on an N reg plane.I hold JAA and FAA medicals what do you think would happen if my FAA medical ran out and I crashed the Citation I fly on N reg and told the insurance " hey guys my FAA medical has run out but I still have a current CAA one? Will that do?"

EASA can regulate till the cows come home but none of their licences medicals bla bla bla are acceptable to the FAA and its their aircraft and their regs you fly to not EASA.

If you are right I could save a lot of money by only running one medical instead of renewing two.

Turn it around the FAA may pass a law that any pilot flying in the USA has to hold an FAA medical. You ferry your aircraft to the states a G reg although you are braking a tachnical law that FAA medical cannot be used on a G reg aircraft.
Unless you carried a valid CAA medical your aircraft would not be insured.

The law braking would be different! one to the requirements of the aircraft the other to the requirement of the state. the one to the requirement of the state holds no VALIDITY on the aircraft only to the state.

There is a massive difference between the two.

Why do you think my jet owner would have to pay over $100,000 if he wanted to transfer his jet to an EASA reg?

Why do you think I cannot use my FAA licences and FAA type rating to go and hire a G reg Citation?
Finally why do you think I cannot use my FAA ATP to rent a G reg Seneca and fly airways?

This is my point! If this lot went through and you decided to be beligerant and fly your N reg Citation on full FAA licences and Medicals EASA could not do you for flying a N reg aircraft without a valid medical or licence.
They could do you for braking a European requirement to hold useless licences but nought to do with the aircraft (important difference)

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

The medical has as much standing as EASA wish to give it. EASA has (or will have) sovereign control over anything they like in their airspace. Therefore while EASA's regulation may be contrary or supplemental to the FARs they have every standing in a N reg aircraft in their airspace if they wish.

In your example if EASA required you to hold an EASA medical (and the FARs a FAA medical) the insurance company would presumably refuse to pay out if you failed to have both because you would have been operating illegally in airspace over which EASA has regulatory control.

In other words I was never suggesting that you dont need to meet all of your responsibilities under the FARs BUT, if EASA wish, you would also need to meet your responsibilites under EASA - which is exactly what the proposed legislation requires.

I see your smiley; I dont like it any more than you do for the reasons I have said. I fly an aircraft on the N reg. Doesnt change the arguments that EASA would use to counter yours if we allow this to come to pass which is why we must ensure our arguments are sound.

[Pace]

Fuji

I am not wrong on this :) and I fully understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but EASA doesnt have jurisdiction over what the FAA require to legally fly their aircraft. They have jurisdiction over their airspace. quite a marked difference. They can tell an American Airline to turn around as it doesnt have permission to enter its airspace but they cannot dictate to the FAA what Medicals or licences that American Airline pilots must hold.
They could for instance regulate that as a European resident you can only fly N reg aircraft if you hold a London Black Cab taxi Licence. Quite in their legal rights to do so. But what relevance would that TAXI licence have to the jet you are flying?

If you were ramp checked they would say" Fuji where is your London Black Cab licence? You dont have one? We are doing you for not holding a London Black Cab Taxi licence yet Flying a N reg jet but you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence NOT the correct licences and medicals to fly the Jet.

A london Black Cab Licence has as much relevance to an FAA aircraft as does an EASA Medical.

I hope you get it now :) would the missing London Taxi Licences void your insurance on the jet if all those licences were in order? I doubt it but who knows? A lawyer/insurance broker?

Pace

[dublinpilot]

They could for instance regulate that as a European resident you can only fly N reg aircraft if you hold a London Black Cab taxi Licence. Quite in their legal rights to do so. But what relevance would that TAXI licence have to the jet you are flying?

If you were ramp checked they would say" Fuji where is your London Black Cab licence? You dont have one? We are doing you for not holding a London Black Cab Taxi licence yet Flying a N reg jet but you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence NOT the correct licences to fly the Jet.


Pace,

In think in your example, you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence while in command of an N reg jet as required by EASA regulation xxxx.

I fail to see what difference that would make to you when your punishment was handed down by the court.

dp

[Pace]

In think in your example, you would be prosecuted for not holding a London Cab licence while in command of an N reg jet as required by EASA regulation xxxx.

Correct :) So it would be a technical infingement rather than an AIRCRAFT licencing infingement or a safety infringement which could only relate to FAA but would be interested to know what the lawyers say.
I know where I am getting to with this even if no one else does :\

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace I think I am closer to understanding your argument but I am not convinced it works. Take my earlier example of the French refusing anyone over the age of 60 the right to operate in their airspace - there is no distinction between flags - it is a simple "if we catch you in our airspace as pilot in Command over 60 you will be in breach of our regulations".

I have never said EASA could have jurisdiction over the FAA requirements to fly an N reg - they cant, but I see no reason at all why EASA cant determine what additional regulations any pilot in their airspace might be required to comply with. Why cant they? If Russia where to say if we catch any pilot in any aircraft in our airspace without pink underpants what you going do when they arrest you in your white boxers - point out they dont have jurisdiction? That might cause international uproar but I see nothing to stop any sovereign nation requiring what they like of any pilot in their airspace regardless of the letter on the side.

and of course the point here is that EASA are skating around their international obligations which they dare not breach by pining these additional responsibilities on their citizens which they would argue are merely operating under a flag of convenience to side step regulations intended for their own citizens.

Take an example. When PanAm crashes on European soil because the pilot had a heart attack and the FAA did not require the pilot to have a medical the press and everyone else will lynch the FAA for their inadequate regualtions. When Jo from Dartford has the same crash in his N reg puddle jumper and the press discover he wears Union Jack boxers they are going to lynch our lot for allowing a pilot to fly in our airspace under a flag of convenience when the authorites should have known full well that it was purely a means of side stepping EASA legislation which would have prevented the acccident.

As someone said earlier an American lawyer however good cannot come and work here in the UK unless he meets the UK's requirements to practice, and the UK feel it has every right to impose these requirements even if the lawyer is practising American law in the UK which he is supremely competent to do!

In the same way an Icelandic Bank may well be authorised to operate as a Bank any where in the world but if we require they must comply with certain regulations, comply they must. When they dont we can and have frozen their assets; when the asssets are here and frozen in our banks it is difficult to argue the UK governement does not have jurisdiction over that particular foreign asset.

In terms of craft their is one other analogy. Yachts can sail any where - they are as international as aircraft. They are also flagged. Now even with the EU, in the UK we do not require the skipper of a yacht to hold any license what so ever. Sail your yacht to Greece and the Greeks will prosecute you for not being licensed in their waters. It is a prime example of where one countries licensing regulations are of no interst to another country - and that, would you believe, is within the EU!

[mm_flynn]

And Pace if you dare fly your Citation without said black cab licence I will personally ensure your black cab licence is revoked!!!!

[Fuji Abound]

Do you think he is moon lighting? :)

[mm_flynn]

Fujian,

You argument works ok for eu citizens, but the regs are broader. An American, with an FAA licence flying an N reg plane crashing in costa rica is now going to be done by EASA if that aircraft was despatched by an EU based operating company - what particular agency is going to achieve that one???

I have obviously highlighted an extreme aspect of the proposal

[Pace]

MM

They could not have jurisdiction out of European airspace :E But interesting as some think here with two sets of licences you would be uninsured over European airspace because your EASA illegal licences on that aircraft are predominant then as you go out of Europe your FAA licences take over and your insured ?
The EASA licences are a requirement of EASA not of the aircraft and is an airspace thing. The FAA licences and medical are the only ones which count with anything to do with the aircraft its insurance and legality.

Pace

[Legalapproach]

Pace

A london Black Cab Licence has as much relevance to an FAA aircraft as does an EASA Medical.

I hope you get it now would the missing London Taxi Licences void your insurance on the jet if all those licences were in order? I doubt it but who knows? A lawyer/insurance broker?

In the event of an accident within EASA airspace the insurers could decline to pay out on a claim. It is a requirement of insurance policies that the aircraft be operated legally. As it would be illegal to operate any aircraft within European airspace without a Black Cab Licence the flight would be illegal. The fact that your other paperwork is in order is irrelevant, the lack of valid Taximetered Cabriolet Licence renders the flight illegal.

[IO540]

It is a requirement of insurance policies that the aircraft be operated legally.

which is tricky because of you ask an insurer for a ruling, he will just say "the flight has to be legal".

He is not going to spend money on his lawyers looking into it.

[maxred]

IO - I wrote that as I was heading out for a much needed couple of drinks. The Spanish bit was anecdotal, maybe he was just a bit off that day, however, the underlying thought process, and situation appeared to be similar to our predicament in the UK.
Do we need change? I honestly do not know. I find the current set up not fit for purpose, therefore by default some CHANGE is required.
The issue here appears to be the scale of the process. The EU is made up of several stakeholders, all with their own views on safety/process/training etc etc. The FAA approach it with mutiple regional offices, all following the common mantra - GA is good.

I mentioned change because EASA appear to want to go down that route, but do not understand nor appreciate how to do it - AND SATISFY ALL IN THE PROCESS. Here appears to lie the problem.

Now how can that be tackled? That was why I hurridly mentioned a glavaniser of sorts, which potentially could, from the ashes:uhoh: draft a more satisfying to all and sundry, workable approach.

All comments on this thread are of course valid, because any change EASA implements will affect different people with differing strategies with differing aspirations on how they wish to fly/operate etc.

It is interesting because my timing in actually doing this transfer has co-incided with this EASA announcement.:confused::confused:

[Fuji Abound]

He is not going to spend money on his lawyers looking into it.


Exactly right.

[Justiciar]

I have never said EASA could have jurisdiction over the FAA requirements to fly an N reg - they cant, but I see no reason at all why EASA cant determine what additional regulations any pilot in their airspace might be required to comply with. Why cant they? If Russia where to say if we catch any pilot in any aircraft in our airspace without pink underpants what you going do when they arrest you in your white boxers - point out they dont have jurisdiction? That might cause international uproar but I see nothing to stop any sovereign nation requiring what they like of any pilot in their airspace regardless of the letter on the side.

I think Fuji is absolutely correct on this. Too many assumptions are made about the limits of international laws and conventions, especially the Chicargo convention. There is nothing in the convention prohibiting a country from imposing its own regulations on anyone flying over its territory to whatever extent they want. The can legislate on licences and maintenance and indeed anything which they perceive impacts on safety. Countries do this already. In many countries you have to pass an air law exam to fly that country's aircraft. Some also require a medical; others like the US do a relatively painless conversion. In the UK you don't currently have to do anything and can legally fly G reg on an FAA licence.

What few if any countries have done is to impose additional licensing requirements on say FAA certificate holders flying N reg on the basis that the operator of the aircraft is based in a certain state. I think this is something new and is not in accordance with ICAO provisions (I am no expert and stand to be corrected on this) which only provide for countries to refuse to recognise licence privileges granted to their nationals (Article 32 is the relevant one if you want to read it). These proposals are unrelated to nationality and discriminate on the basis solely of where the operator is established. This may actually be quite difficult to determine for commercial organisations. What is even more shocking is that there is a type of reverse discrimination here and if the EU and EASA set out to discourage as many companies as possible from establishing themselves in the EU then they couldn't have done a much better job:ugh:

In many instances the rules will be quite difficult to enforce. How, for example will a ramp check of an N reg in Greece determine whether the pilot is flying lawfully or not? Looking at his licences and the aircraft documents wont do it, nor even will knowing where the company it is flying for has its registered office or main european office as none of this will necessarily demonstrate where the aircraft operations are established.

[IO540]

Good summary by Justiciar above.

Maxred

That was why I hurridly mentioned a glavaniser of sorts, which potentially could, from the ashes

If EASA's FCL proposals were to melt down (possible though unlikely to happen comprehensively) then we might get a return to the status quo i.e. JAA (and each country doing their own thing, as before). The problem is that you are still left with the EU expense-driven gravy train and that is an extremely powerful driver. This is a monster which is very difficult to tame, and nobody is going to disband it. EASA only has to use the magic word "safety" and since the politicians above it are clue-less about aviation they will always cave in.

I think a lot of people are getting seriously p*ssed off with EASA having published some potentially draconian proposals, then having its top officials off the record briefing everybody under the sun, for years, that the implementation won't affect this and that group (including N-regs), and then ignoring all the comments and doing the original thing...

I am writing to my MEP. The article here (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-06/EASA_Rules_threaten_international_General_Aviation) is a good summary of the situation but the basic point to make is that these proposals will, for the first time in "civilised country" aviation, strip existing pilots of their privileges, for no good reason whatever, and at least 99% of EASA proposals are not based on any safety data whatsoever.

[maxred]

The reason that I am moving to N reg, was a comprehesive failure of two UK Approved maintenance organisations to actually carry out what I paid them for. Not a new story I am sure to many.
With this move has come 9 seperate MOR, lodged Recorded Delivery to Gatwick Monday morning, Regional Office, and I copied in the Safety Reg Group in Brussels for good measure.

Perhaps a move would be to cover the whole easa/caa safety FAILURE, to the MEP as fodder:O

Might be to late, but in the event 13/14th brought a pause, more ammo to the cause

[IO540]

Unfortunately moving to N-reg will not by itself improve the quality of your maintenance.

The only way to do that is to get clued up about planes and manage the process closely - more closely than most people do.

For example when I take mine for the Annual, I buy all the parts which must be changed and free-issue them to the company. They don't cost much (on the TB20) but this avoids irritating crap like the air filter (£15; a generic Lyco part) not being changed.

I also type up a list of known things to do, and a list of things to not do (e.g. fuel selector o-rings which were changed on the last 50hr check and which need doing every few years).

Many N-reg owners pay the EASA Part M standard Annual cost anyway...

But at least you can avoid the known crooks, because anybody can do the work and then an A&P/IA signs the release to service. That A&P/IA needs to be somebody you know and trust. If possibly you pay him directly. In fact if you had a hangar where maintenance was allowed, he could do all maintenance on your plane.

The advantage of N is that you can get more involved and use individuals who you know are good. With EASA stuff you end up using companies where you have no idea who does the work. The company has the approvals but the job can be done by somebody good, or by a monkey, but because the company is approved you have no comeback and the CAA will do nothing.

You still need to do the usual airfield-political stuff i.e. use a local company for some work at least, because you will need them when you are AOGd :)

[maxred]

Yes, exactly. I have chosen my DAR, and I have chosen my IA. Time will tell if these are the 'right guys'. It was a move, whilst I had considered it, did not want to actually make. However my type, Beech Bonanza, and mods I wanted to carry out, the EASA route was untenable, therefore I did not have any choice left. There is of course much more detail to the story, but that for another time.

I like your point on buying my own parts, sounds good, and of course you effectively manage the process, not the other way round.

I know have to consider what to do on my IR rating:confused::confused:

[englishal]

The reason we're moving to the N reg is several fold...

Firstly so that I can fly IFR using my FAA IR
Secondly so the co-owner can train for his FAA IR using independent CFII at his own pace and without having to do a formal ground school course which he doesn't have time for (being a busy dentist).
Thirdly so that I can upgrade the avionics (and hence increase safety) without being weighed down by bureaucratic STC process and associated fees.

All this adds to safety.

For me to convert the FAA IR to a JAA IR firstly will take 6 months of ground study before I get in the aeroplane. I'd then have to get my aeroplane approved for IR training (despite waas enabled avionics fully IFR certified) and find a FTO willing to train me in it (I probably know more about flying with these high tech avionics than many of their FIs)- I estimate the whole process to cost me £6-7,000. For the co-owner to do it from scratch in our aeroplane it would probably cost £10,000, not including actual aeroplane costs, fees, etc. (I have assumed £200 per hour for the privilege of the instructor training in our own aeroplane)

So in real terms it would cost us £20,000+. As the aeroplane is being rebuilt after an accident (NB by a JAA Part 145 company so we're not doing Europe out of work), it is actually beneficial to do it now as this will avoid lost of CAA fees, and the money saved on them will almost pay for the conversion to N reg.

Had there been a realistic IR conversion process, a realistic IR training regime and simplified installation of avionics and gizmos without the huge fees involved, then likely we'd have kept the aeroplane G reg. We only fly it privately after all and it is not a 747 ferrying passengers around for hire and reward.

I have a friend who not only is a G reg TP captain but also a FAA CFII who can fly with my buddy as and when. Under the FARs of the 40 hrs instrument time required, he can do up to 25 with a safety pilot - i.e. me, so he can practice the basics for "free" and then the CFII can fly with him from time to time. IN return for IR training we'd swap aeroplane time, so my buddy (who I trust completely - he trained me in the USA some time ago) can then use our aeroplane for his own personal use for X hours (+ fuel which he will pay for). The "real" cost of using our aeroplane is far less than paying for an FI.

Clearly if these new rules do come it to force it will cause us a bit of a headache, but won't make much difference if the IMCr grandfather rights also come in, along with an EIR (I also hold JAA PPL/IMC along with my FAA CPL/IR).

The thing I am not clear on is the maintenance....Our part M company said with some glee yesterday that we'd be subject to ARCs and EASA maintenance, but as the aeroplane is on the N reg, also the FAA required maintenance. I am not sure if this is correct, I spent an hour on the EASA website before getting so bored I gave up....

[maxred]

That comment from your Part M company has just not made my morning. Think I will have to look into that in greater detail. It is not my reading of it, however, best I go back and check:eek:

[IO540]

Our part M company said with some glee yesterday that we'd be subject to ARCs and EASA maintenance, but as the aeroplane is on the N reg, also the FAA required maintenance. I am not sure if this is correct, I spent an hour on the EASA website before getting so bored I gave up....

On current proposals it is 100% bollox, much as I completely believe they said it with all the glee they could muster :ugh:

This is a fantastic business for spotting the axe grinders ;) A bit too easy though...

Read my post earlier in the thread :)

The proposal is here (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_100) but there appears to be a typo between the stuff on page 8 and the stuff on page 9, but it won't affect you anyway if your plane has an EASA TC. No EASA maintenance oversight for SE or ME pistons or SE turboprops (below 5700kg, single crew, etc - the definition of 'non complex' is in there too). This is the one bit of good news from EASA for most of us. Bad news if you fly a King Air etc but probably not too much because any company doing the servicing for you will be EASA 145 anyway...

[Zulu Alpha]

Just a thought, are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in the EEC?

I thought not, so surely all the N reg aircraft will just base themselves there and continue to fly round Europe as usual.

What an awful mess this EASA is turning out to be. The whole thing seems to be based on the principle that its a privilege to fly in Europe, whereas in the US its a right.

[IO540]

It is certainly true that a private owner-pilot living outside the EU, and flying out of there to the EU, does not need to be concerned with these proposals.

Corporate operations will be able to set up various structures to achieve the same thing. Private owners probably could too. What concerns me is the insurance angle, as already discussed. This could be a field day for insurers to walk away from payouts.

[TWR]

What an awful mess this EASA is turning out to be. The whole thing seems to be based on the principle that its a privilege to fly in Europe, whereas in the US its a right.

The essence in a nutshell, that is...

[IO540]

I think the issue is really that here in Europe the tendency is to create gravy trains in aviation regulation.

If you create a gravy train, lots of people will jump on it. This will happen everywhere in the world.

Let's be frank... most people hate their jobs, and would jump on the chance of a nice cushy number in Belgium or Germany. The job doesn't have to have any objective value. They would just as happily work in a firm regulating the thickness of chocolate bar wrapping paper.

The fault is in the higher institutions, for creating these monsters which they don't understand. If you run a business, you don't create a department which you haven't got a clue what it does, but which has the power to p*ss off your customers big-time. In fact any business unit which has any kind of customer interaction would be kept on a tight leash (in a well organised company; not necessarily many of those around these days).

[Fuji Abound]

Zulu Alpha

I thought not, so surely all the N reg aircraft will just base themselves there and continue to fly round Europe as usual.

No.

As drafted the regulations are designed to bite the operator not the place of ownership. The thinking is that IF the aircraft is owned by a CI company / trust but is kept at an airport in the EU and the CIs company trust is merely or little more than the owner you are dead in the water.

If on the other hand you the pilot owner live in the CIs and your aircraft is kept in the CIs then you are ok for flights backwards and forwards to the EU.

[englishal]

The thinking is that IF the aircraft is owned by a CI company / trust but is kept at an airport in the EU and the CIs company trust is merely or little more than the owner you are dead in the water.
THAT is where the clarification is needed? Who knows what they mean when they refer to "Operator" because you could quite easily be an operator of the controls, domiciled in Europe (NB: EASA member state) but the the aircraft be operated by a foreign company outside the EASA. Or it could mean the company operating the aircraft and nothing to do with the person operating the controls could it not?

My plane is on trust with a trust fully run from the USA (our FAA IA's brother who is resident in the USA has a small trust company)....I am an EU resident. Am I now required to hold EASA licenses?

Thanks for the link IO, which clearly shows we're not subject to EU maintenance. Reading their proposals I believe what EASA are trying to crack down on are companies operating for H&R foreign aircraft in EASA airspace. Trouble is, it is very badly worded.....

[IO540]

The "complex" definition of twin turboprop or 19 seats appears to be designed to give a commercial advantage in Europe to Socata and Pilatus, over Beechcraft :) It is a bit obvious when you know the max seat config of a PC12. It is a finger-up to the USA.

[VOD80]

People often talk about insurance companies walking away from claims but are there any known cases of this?

Take this accident for example: probable deficiencies in training, hours loggong, skills test, probable deficiencies in maintenance (engine maintained by a company without approvals for that engine) - all followed by a fatal crash.

Huddersfield Examiner - News - Local West Yorkshire News - Millionaire Brighouse businessman Paul Spencer and wife died in helicopter crash due to weather and lack of training (http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-west-yorkshire-news/2009/11/12/millionaire-brighouse-businessman-paul-spencer-and-wife-died-in-helicopter-crash-due-to-weather-and-lack-of-training-86081-25150823/)

Air Accidents Investigation: Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle, YU-HEW (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/bulletins/november_2009/aerospatiale_westland_sa_341g_gazelle__yu_hew.cfm)

Did the insurance company walk away? Or is this just a bogeyman that gets put up?

[IO540]

I don't think insurers care much for crap training. If they did, they would walk away from most claims in the UK ;)

Same for crap maintenance. This is widespread. It is not a hugely evident safety hazard on fixed-wing but probably is on helis :)

The thing which does make them walk away, according to what the UK's biggest insurer told me, is if the flight is clearly illegal even before takeoff i.e. pilot license/medical irregularities.

[gyrotyro]

Can someone please clarify for me...

Would the new proposed regulations allow someone to fly an "N" reg a/c in the EU under VFR rules with a JAA licence (or uprated to the new EASA licence) with an FAA "based on" licence ?

[IO540]

Apparently yes, though you would need to renew your 61.75 because the underlying Euro paper has changed, and this may mean a trip to the USA.

[mm_flynn]

Can someone please clarify for me...

Would the new proposed regulations allow someone to fly an "N" reg a/c in the EU under VFR rules with a JAA licence (or uprated to the new EASA licence) with an FAA "based on" licence ?

To qualify slightly your question.

The new proposed regulations do not allow you to do anything new. Whatever licences are required today are still required in the new world. However, if the aircraft operator is based in EASA land, then the pilot must have EASA licences as well (although it is not 100% clear what this means when there isn't a one of one mapping of licences (i.e. KingAirs).

So to fly N reg in the EU under VFR you will need an FAA licence (which can be based on pretty much any ICAO licence) AND an EASA licence.

It is also not clear to me what the status of JAA and National Licences will be from 2012. It is clear you will require an EASA licence to fly an EASA aircraft, but a national licence will be OK for Annex II. However, it is possible the national authorities will define that their licences are no longer valid for either a-EASA aircraft (which is a redundant action because EASA has already done this) or b- Aircraft not in Annex II (which would mean that you could no longer fly a C172 in the US using your 61.75 based on an old CAA or JAA licence).

[BillieBob]

It is also not clear to me what the status of JAA and National Licences will be from 2012.JAA licences will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with the EASA implementing rules (Article 4(1) of the Cover Regulation). The UK CAA have already stated that UK national licences will be valid on UK registered Annex II aircraft - whether or not they will be valid on any other state's aircraft is nothing whatever to do with the UK CAA.

[peter272]

.... despite the fact they are ICAO compliant licences currently, but soon won't be.

How is it that this can happen - overnight a licence moves from compliance to non-compliance without any legislatory oversight or reason

[Fuji Abound]

Apparently yes, though you would need to renew your 61.75 because the underlying Euro paper has changed, and this may mean a trip to the USA.


I dont know - will EASA become a "country" since there will only be one licensing authority unlike the current regime.

[Mike Cross]

Stop being obtuse. Who will issue your EASA licence? Will it be the United States of Europe or the UK?

[mm_flynn]

JAA licences will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with the EASA implementing rules (Article 4(1) of the Cover Regulation). The UK CAA have already stated that UK national licences will be valid on UK registered Annex II aircraft - whether or not they will be valid on any other state's aircraft is nothing whatever to do with the UK CAA.

My reading says the EASA implementmenting rules only deal with 'EASA aircraft'. If the JAA licences are deemed to only apply to EASA aircraft, that will be a bit of a disappointment for Europeans travelling to the US!

If validity of the CAA licences beyond Annex II aircraft and excluding EASA aircraft isn't a matter for the CAA then who is the competent authority?


Re the United States of Europe, I am sure once all of the States resign from ICAO, EASA will be allowed to be the Contracting State and the FAA will recognize the United States of Europe for aviation matters.

[Justiciar]

The "complex" definition of twin turboprop or 19 seats appears to be designed to give a commercial advantage in Europe to Socata and Pilatus, over Beechcraft It is a bit obvious when you know the max seat config of a PC12. It is a finger-up to the USA.

There is no doubt that this is a protectionist issue ot some degree. It would have been easy for EASA to have simply adopted Article 32 and refused to recognise licences granted to its own citizens. But this would have been a massive own goal discriminating against EU citizens and encouraging the employment of non EU nationality pilots.

Stop being obtuse. Who will issue your EASA licence? Will it be the United States of Europe or the UK?

I don't think it is an obtuse question at all. Under ICAO authority rests with the State above whose territory an aircraft is flying. The EASA regime does not change that and it a good question to ask where say the UK (a signatory to ICAO Conventions) now sits when it has delegated power to EASA. If EASA want to seek to derrogate from the Conventions, which it does by its rules on licensing for operators fo foreign registered aircraft established in the EU (under Article 7 of Part FCL) then this derrogation has to be done by the States, not EASA (which does not have a seat at ICAO).

If Part FCL is implemented in the way proposed it seems to me that this will put every state signatory in breach of the Conventions, unless each EU state individually notifies the derrogations as they are required to do under the Convention. There is huge ambiguity in the position of EASA at an international level as from what I can see the Conventions do not envisage a situation where a State delegated permanently and irrevocably and without retaining any power of veto or oversight its authority under the Conventions to make rules for licensing, aerodromes or airspace (yes, I know this last is Eurocontrol) above its own territory.

[IO540]

If EASA want to seek to derrogate from the Conventions, which it does by its rules on licensing for operators fo foreign registered aircraft established in the EU (under Article 7 of Part FCL) then this derrogation has to be done by the States, not EASA (which does not have a seat at ICAO).

I imagine that EASA simply thought "we are an agency of the EU, and since the EU can force member states to do whatever it says, that's the end of it".

This is a very interesting angle, understandable if EASA's committee did not get any legal advice when they were writing this stuff.

[BillieBob]

If validity of the CAA licences beyond Annex II aircraft and excluding EASA aircraft isn't a matter for the CAA then who is the competent authority?The authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered, as is currently the case. The UK cannot determine licensing requirements to fly another state's aircraft; EASA clearly thinks it can but it remains to be seen whether it is right.

Incidentally, I did not say that JAA licences will be deemed to apply only to EASA aircraft but only that they will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with EASA Part FCL (i.e. there will be no additional conversion requirements from a JAA to an EASA licence). In the UK, at least, JAA licences will continue to be valid on both EASA and Annex II aircraft after 2012.

[mm_flynn]

The authority of the state in which the aircraft is registered, as is currently the case. The UK cannot determine licensing requirements to fly another state's aircraft; EASA clearly thinks it can but it remains to be seen whether it is right.

Incidentally, I did not say that JAA licences will be deemed to apply only to EASA aircraft but only that they will be deemed to have been issued in accordance with EASA Part FCL (i.e. there will be no additional conversion requirements from a JAA to an EASA licence). In the UK, at least, JAA licences will continue to be valid on both EASA and Annex II aircraft after 2012.

The specific case I was referencing was - A UK CAA issued lifetime PPL upon which our pilot has a 61.75 licence issued. The pilot has a current BFR, is in the US, rents an Nreg from a unambigously US Operator. Is he legal to fly post 2012?

One interpretation of the implementing rules is that the CAA will change the existing law to say that it is no longer legal to fly any aircraft not listed in Annex II using the lifetime PPL. This would logically be a restriction that flows through to the FAA certificate and our reference pilot would not be able to uses his FAA licence. Another interpretation is the CAA will remain silent about what one can or can not do with a CAA PPL but will change the ANO to reflect the new EASA rules by adding a statement such as "must have an EASA PPL to operate an EASA aircraft". It is this dynamic which, to me at least, remains unclear. And is very much a CAA question not a question for the state of registry.

[Justiciar]

The UK cannot determine licensing requirements to fly another state's aircraft

Just watch them! There is absolutely nothing in internationallaw to prevent it.

[peter272]

Except EASA takes precedence

[bookworm]

If Part FCL is implemented in the way proposed it seems to me that this will put every state signatory in breach of the Conventions, unless each EU state individually notifies the derrogations as they are required to do under the Convention.

I think it is indeed envisaged that every state in the EU will need to file differences (the same common EU differences) with ICAO on Annex 1 (FCL), Annex 2 (RotA) and Annex 6 (OPS) at the very least. Presumably this has already been done with Annex 8 (Airworthiness).

[Pace]

Just watch them! There is absolutely nothing in internationallaw to prevent it.

Justiclair

I am not so sure about that! EASA cannot regulate on licences or medicals reaquired to fly an FAA aircraft anymore than the FAA could come over here and determine what FAA licences are required to fly a G reg.
Having said that YES they can but the licences or medicals that they may require their citizens to hold cannot in law relate to the aircraft as that is a nonsense.
I know if my owner wants to convert his jet to G it would cost over $100,000
I had an instrument fail and calling into a maintenance unit they had one with CAA numbers on it. We legally could not fit the unit into an FAA aircraft.
How can they determine licences to use on an FAA aircraft.
They can on their citizens but as I posted before it might as well be a licence to drive a Black cab Taxi.
Break that law and I cannot see how an insurance is void as you would carry all the licences and medicals required to fly the FAA aircraft. The EASA licences although a state airspace requirement has no relation to the aircraft.
Yes a flight can be deemed illegal but that concerns overweight takeoffs , lack of medical etc. All diminshed safety items.
What I am saying here is you would be breaking a different type of Law. If not just have written into the insurance "will comply with all the regulations required by the FAA".
I am not that convinced that these suggestions would satisfy legal scruitiny?
Consider the Kingair? In the states it does not require a type rating in Europe it does but any type rating issued in Europe could not attach to an FAA kingair as that KingAir would not in itself comply with EASA?

Pace

[Legalapproach]

Pace

What you do not seem to follow is that EASA can regulate flight within its own airspace and impose whatever regulations it wishes to. Within that airspace an aircraft of whatever registration is bound to comply with the regulations or the flight is illegal at that point of time. I do not understand your use of the phrase breaking a different type of law. The breach of the law would be a breach of the law applicable to that aircraft at that time. It might be a breach of a different regulation but would still be a breach of the law. If you can get your insurers to agree to a clause whereby the insurance would be valid provided that the aircraft is operated in accordance with FAA legislation and no other law or regulation applying to the aircraft then good luck to you, but I think you will find that they are in the business of avoiding claims whenever possible.

As for your Kingair example it would be open to EASA to ban the operation of any Kingair within EASA airspace unless the PiC holds an EASA approved type rating. In such circumstances an FAA licence holder could not legally act as PiC of an N reg or any other Kingair within EASA airspace without the type rating. The fact that it is not an FAA requirement and the type rating would not attach to an FAA licence is irrelevant.

[BillieBob]

The specific case I was referencing was - A UK CAA issued lifetime PPL upon which our pilot has a 61.75 licence issued. The pilot has a current BFR, is in the US, rents an Nreg from a unambigously US Operator. Is he legal to fly post 2012?It will be up to the FAA to decide whether the certificate remains valid (i.e. whether they still accept the UK national licence). My reading of the requirement suggests that they will so long as the UK remains an ICAO contracting state.

(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.

Whether he will then be able to fly that aircraft in EU airspace without an EASA licence is another matter, but still not one for the UK to determine.


The real question is whether the FAA will accept a licence issued by EASA (which is not a contracting state) under Part 61.75. I expect the answer will be that the licence is actually issued by the signatory state (e.g. the UK CAA) in accordance with EASA Part FCL, not by EASA itself.

[Fuji Abound]

but I thought EASA are desperately trying to get a seat or two as an ICAO member? Will they not be let in to this all too cosy club. ;)

Maybe if they carry on as they are America might want to excercise its veto.

[flybymike]

It will be up to the FAA to decide whether the certificate remains valid (i.e. whether they still accept the UK national licence). My reading of the requirement suggests that they will so long as the UK remains an ICAO contracting state.


It would be ironic in the extreme if the US accepted a lifetime CAA licence as a valid ICAO licence, whilst at the same time the CAA itself pronounced the same licence it to be "sub ICAO" just to keep EASA happy.

[flybymike]

October 10, 2010

European IFR Pilots Work For Compromise Email this article |Print this article

By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief

A group representing instrument-rated private pilots in Europe is hopeful that new unified standards for all IFR operations can be implemented without causing undue hardship for those who now fly under FAA certificates. In a podcast interview with AVweb, Jim Thorpe, vice chairman of PPL/IR Europe, said negotiations between the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA toward standardized licensing requirements have failed and EASA's controversial move to make its own standards mandatory by 2012 is part of the process toward achieving the unified standard. FAA certificates are currently accepted in Europe and many pilots there fly on them because FAA standards require much less dual and ground school than those in Europe. He said the rules currently being proposed are intended for commercial pilots and he's hopeful a less onerous approach will be taken for the relatively few IFR-rated private pilots in Europe.



The new rules also affect maintenance and certification standards for aircraft but Thorpe said he doesn't think that will be a significant barrier to U.S.-made aircraft. "The proposals there are pretty benign now and there's really no reason an N-registered aircraft couldn't be operated in Europe," Thorpe said. He said the long-term goal should be a set of common standards but in the meantime he's hopeful that transitional regulations will ease the burden on pilots who will be affected by the changes.


Above is latest pronouncment from Jim Thorpe who assures us that all will be well, so no more sleepless nights chaps.

[flybymike]

Are the old UK CAA lifetime licenses due to become obsolete / null and void in 2012?

We wish we knew....

[PontiusPilote]

http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caa.co.uk%2Fdocs%2F620%2Fsrg_l%26ts_Eur opeanLegislation_ExpectedEffectOnUKPilots_Sept2010.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fprivate-flying%2F429023-uk-ppl-licence-what-happens-after-5-years.html

[Thomascl605]

So Russ Niles thinks that a less onerous approach will be taken against FAA PPL's with IR's, as he says these regs are mostly aimed at FAA CPL/ATPL's.

I really hope he succeeds with this, it'll give the perfect evidence that these proposed rules are utter madness.

If EASA give a straightforward conversion or even no conversion required for an FAA PPL/IR to an EASA IR, they are actually saying that a pilot holding an FAA PPL/IR is safer to fly IFR in Europe, than an FAA CPL/IR or ATP.

As we know EASA are basing this on safety, yet no published study or findings have been made public, because it has already been proved that FAA licenced pilots are as safe as their European counterparts.

The perfect ammo for myself and many more like me to drag this one through the courts.

[Thomascl605]

And I think that you will find that if these rules get voted in, anything could happen in terms of some extremely p*ssed off licencing authorities.

It really wouldn't surprise me if the FAA outlawed the 'issued on the basis of your JAA licence' for starters. I wouldn't blame them, they could easily ban a JAA licence due to safety concerns. Maybe even ban all of those FAA certs that have been issued already on the basis of a JAA licence. That must run into thousands.

[mm_flynn]

It will be up to the FAA to decide whether the certificate remains valid (i.e. whether they still accept the UK national licence). My reading of the requirement suggests that they will so long as the UK remains an ICAO contracting state.

(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.

Whether he will then be able to fly that aircraft in EU airspace without an EASA licence is another matter, but still not one for the UK to determine.


The real question is whether the FAA will accept a licence issued by EASA (which is not a contracting state) under Part 61.75. I expect the answer will be that the licence is actually issued by the signatory state (e.g. the UK CAA) in accordance with EASA Part FCL, not by EASA itself.

The quote from the FARs is incomplete. The more relevant bit is (3) Is subject to the limitations and restrictions on the .... Foreign Pilots licence.

It is for this reason that the CAAs view of how they implement the EASA rules is the deciding factor on validity. I can not see how the FAA can be expected to determine non-documented potential restrictions. It is up to the CAA in their implementing rules (or lack of them).

Re-EASA as a State, my understanding is exactly as you comment. The various European Contracting States will actually issue the EASA licences, not EASA directly.

[Justiciar]

Maybe if they carry on as they are America might want to excercise its veto

Don't you just hope that they will! The problem for EASA is that the conventions signed by the members of ICAO all hinge on the state being the entity which determines its licensing and airspace requirements and which is responsible for enforcing regulations for international civil aviation. The concept of a non state being an ICAO member or a regulatory entity sits ill with the Conventions and it would seem to me that those Conventions would require amendment to enable EASA to become a member in its own right. As things stand the status of the new rules is an interesting question, since they are not issued by an ICAO Convention State, though they would be enforced by the states within their own territory. Can a state delegate its rule making powers under the Conventions? Don't know the answer to that.

He said the rules currently being proposed are intended for commercial pilots and he's hopeful a less onerous approach will be taken for the relatively few IFR-rated private pilots in Europe

I would very much like to know where this statement comes from. If Mr. Thorpe has information then he should share it since this does not appear to come from anything currently in the public domain and appear contrary to the current rule proposals. In fact the current wording is very much directed at private pilots.

[IO540]

The problem is that Eric Sivel may well have said something like this to Person X, but being a politician he will also say something different to Person Y.

All we have to go on is their published proposals.

It would make sense to defuse the argument at the "bottom of the GA food chain" by giving FAA PPL/IRs an EASA PPL/IR, though I cannot see this happening without an initial checkride, for obvious "Euro emotional safety crap" reasons.

However this still doesn't deal with the people higher up e.g. paid CPL/IRs flying corporate and private jets, who will be facing the full 14 exams etc. I suppose a lot of the operators will be able to set up off-EU "operator" structures but not all.

I bet EASA is furiously doing off the record "briefings" :yuk: as we speak, trying to minimise the number of NO votes. So I would expect a lot more "cloud" coming out this week.

[Thomascl605]

I wont be sitting 14 exams ! Neither will most of the others that I've spoken to about this rubbish.

You see, in Corporate we can't take the amount of time off required for the study and the sitting of the worthless 14 exams. It would be immediate loss of job if we did.

Having spoken with a lot of other Pilots in the same situation as me, we will however be dragging EASA and Mr Snivel through the courts if these idiotic and frankly illegal proposals are voted in.

[IO540]

OK, everybody, here (http://www.writetothem.com/) is the URL for your MEPs.

Write to them TODAY.

Keep it brief, no copy/paste from elsewhere, and tell them how it will affect you and how it is purely a cynical in-your-face EU political measure with zero safety benefit.

Including this URL (http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main=%7Bhttp://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2010-10-07/FAA_and_Europe_Safety_Record%7D) may not be a bad thing, as it is a well written background article.

Here is a tiny URL version of the above (http://tinyurl.com/26e4cap), which will be better for copying and pasting in the webform.

Spread the word on other forums, etc.

[Katamarino]

Done; although with the hearings starting tomorrow, have we not left this a bit late? They probably have a backlog of weeks on these emails...

[Thomascl605]

Yes, done here too, a while back.

Probably a bit late now, Snivel and the gang are gearing up for it tomorrow.

[Pace]

Thomas

FAA in Europe has been an accepted and legal practice in Europe for over 2 decades.

These EASA People can at a sweep of a pen destroy our incomes and positions that we hold through no fault of our own loose and with no redress for our losses and expenses incurred.

I said in an earlier post that this move is discriminatory against race (Europeans) It might as well read black coloured people. EASA can try and wrap this up as they want but discrimination is what it is put purely in place for politics not safety to banish N reg from Europe by using a cruel stick to beat us into submission.The whole thing in a free world is disgusting and I am amazed that there is nothing that we can do.

EASA could have looked at why 10000 in Europe went the FAA way learnt some lessons and put something equally attractive in place but that thought with EASA is a joke as their mission can only be to destroy aviation in Europe.

I am not just talking about N reg I feel very sorry for the AOC OPS saddled with so much burocracy and needless costs and for what SAFETY? EASAs supposed mission? They dont know what the word means.
Count me in if there is a way of suing them?

Pace

[Marchettiman]

Practically the net effect of EASA's attitude to their "stakeholders" or whatever we aviators are going to be called next, is that they are disaffecting tens of thousands of sane, logical opinion formers from the true purpose of the EU. I am not about to lose a job or suddenly find I have a devalued aeroplane on my hands, but I feel strongly that the EU should not have that power over us for no tangible reason.

It is very clear that EASA do not have their public with them, and operate in an arena of confrontation and discord instead of co-operation with the segment of population they are tasked to protect and nurture.

Regulation is a necessity in all aspects of civilized society, but over-regulation is the product of excessive bureaucracy; EASA seems to have disregarded that basic tenat, and it can only take a change of people and mindset within the organization to correct and contain the ambitions of desk bound rule makers who are so out of touch with the subject of their raison d'être.

We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.

[IO540]

We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.

Unfortunately, the first is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face (if done intentionally), and the other is simply not going to happen (unless the EU melts down due to the present crisis, which is not impossible).

I cannot think of another proposal which is more pointless, and which has so few supporters (beyond the customary axe grinders of which most would never own up to their views publicly, because they would feel ashamed).

As Pace says, these ops have been permitted in Europe for many years (a lot more than 20 - e.g. Graham Hill was N-reg back in the 1970s) so blocking them now is very unfair.

It will be interesting to see what happens to EASA and all this garbage, over the next few months.

EASA has been very clever in keeping this below the event horizon of Europe's major stakeholders. A few weeks ago I was having a lunch with the executives of one of Europe's significant aircraft makers (not light GA) and none of them had even heard of the FCL proposal. They know now, of course ;)

[Pace]

LegalApproach

What you do not seem to follow is that EASA can regulate flight within its own airspace and impose whatever regulations it wishes to. Within that airspace an aircraft of whatever registration is bound to comply with the regulations or the flight is illegal at that point of time.

Can you explain to me how come if EASA has this power to do as they will regardless of the damage created how it has taken 20 years of failed attempts to remove N reg fom Europe? Surely they could have done it with the sweep of a pen years ago?

What has changed today?

If EASA has this superhuman power to destroy peoples lives, livelyhood, cost them a fortune by the sweep of a pen and these people have no redress in law against EASA then something has to be seriously wrong for things were better in communist Russia?

We should be standing up en masse against this? protesting outside EASAs doors in our thousands with banners! grabbing the attention of the media.
EASA should be exposed for what it is doing to the health of aviation in Europe but all we have is AOPA to put our case.

Sadly a few of us spouting off our frustrations in these forums wont achieve a thing in real terms.

Pace

[Pace]

Socal

There have been numerous attempts to curtail N reg in Europe at differing times. All failed! I believe the last was the 90 day rule which also failed.
But all of a sudden along comes EASA who by what is said in this forum can do what they like when they like and are immune to any scrutiny without redress. Since when?

CJBoy

Anything constructive or meaningful in the reply?

We can only vote with our feet, by leaving aviation and/or voting for withdrawal from the EU. How sad.

Problem with that is that all you would achieve is what EASA wants. The Elimination of GA and ALL airtransport confined to the State PEOPLE carriers and military! Mind you not sure about the Military either as that is shrinking at a fast rate of KTS too.
THE BIG STATE PEOPLE CARRIERS ONLY!

Pace

[Legalapproach]

Pace

National Aviation authorities have always been able to regulate their own airspace and they have done so in the past, for example the CAA has banned certain foreign carriers or registrations from operating within UK airspace when there have been concerns about maintenance standards or aircraft types when there have been concerns about their airworthiness.

Further, the CAA currently has the right to limit the operation of foreign registered aircraft and the law provides for this - see for example articles 138 and 140 of the ANO (restrictions on non-UK registered aircraft being operated for valuable consideration and for the purposes of aerial photography or aerial survey).

By and large the authorities have been influenced by a degree of common sense and international treaty obligations.

In the past, whilst there were individual authorities it might have been difficult for one country to take unilateral action. For example as we are all part of the EU a decision by, say, Germany to ban its' citizens from operating N reg without good reason might be open to challenge if most or the rest of the EU CAA's allowed it for their citizens.

Then God or his representatives in Brussels created EASA. You talk about 20 years being spent trying to ban N reg but EASA was only created in 2003 and only reached full functionality in 2008, therefore 18 years was wasted but now, fortunately, EASA, a self serving, self important, bureaucratic monster is here to get on with the job.

Bear in mind that the spec. requirement for EASA appears to - be how we can create:
(a) a lot of jobs for ourselves
(b) a lot of power for ourselves
and
(c) an amalgamation of all of the worst aspects of our members former CAA's

As with so many governmental type organisations the ethos appears to be "we must legislate, we must interfere, we must constantly tinker and alter in order to look busy; otherwise it might give the impression that we are unnecessary. However, above all we must save our citizens from themselves because not only do we know best, but we have the power"

However, the point that I and a number of other contributors have made is that, irrespective of whether any decision is in fact fair or rational, EASA has the power to effectively ban N reg operations for its' citizens living within its' boundaries if it so wished. The justification if it wanted to would I suspect be along the lines of:

"We are tasked with the maintenance of safety standards within our airspace. We have no control over FAA maintenance or licencing standards. In order to standardize and both properly and effectively regulate safety within EASA world we require any aircraft ordinarily based within our territorial jurisdiction to adhere to EASA airworthiness, maintenance and operating requirements"

How could this be open to challenge? What Judge or politician for that matter is going to say that on the face of it EASA's approach is unreasonable?

To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.

I have some sympathy with the underlying sentiments expressed in your posts, I find the turf war between FAA and EASA to be quite ludicrous, but from a legal perspective EASA has the power to regulate and the only way of effectively fighting this is through the politicians.

[flyingfemme]

Legalapproach

Your argument sounds reasonable but there are several points to disagree with.

The third country aircraft with bald tyres and string are already banned; aircraft and pilots from several nations have been forbidden to enter UK (and other) airspace on safety grounds. This is right and proper. No pilot will argue with that.

The USA pretty much invented general aviation regulation and has an excellent safety record. No systemic problems have been identified with FAA overseen maintenance, certainly in the UK. There is no safety problem to be fixed.

The same applies to FAA licenced pilots, anywhere in the world. FAA standards are the "lingua franca" of the aviation world and every country is familiar with migration to, and from, those standards.

Our CAA do have the right to stop all operations for valuable consideration by non-EASA aircraft within their boundaries. But they don't in practice. In fact they consider each case and can/will grant permission. What does that say about safety?

None of the operations being addressed in this "problem" are commercial in the EASA definition - they are all "private" ops - so the misleading of the ignorant public does not come into the equation. Why do we need protecting from ourselves?

The consequences of this action could be catastrophic for many businesses both sides of the Atlantic. Custom and practice has allowed many operations to be built that support many people and now is not a good time to destroy jobs and/or livelihoods on a whim. The value of the GA fleet can/may also plummet and this will affect the bottom line for many individuals and businesses who hold positions of power in the job market and whose spending supports other businesses.

Some "operators" in the crosshairs can/will relocate outside the EU and take their toys, as well as their income tax revenue, jobs and spending power, with them. Once gone, such people will not return without a great deal of inducement.

The identification of operations that breach the new rules will be very difficult; the rules have not yet been properly defined. Do we prosecute EU passport holders flying any other registration than local? Or do we rely on the "base of operation" of the operator? Who is "the operator"? All very badly thought out by people who don't understand what is going on.

I'm not convinced that it will happen this time; it didn't work before. But my suitcase stands ready and I'm casually househunting........bet I'm not alone.

[Pace]

To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.

LegalApproach

If your name is anything to go by then I will fire a few questions at you?

EASA did infact try the safety arguement as with your African example above but EASA spent a lot of money trying to build that case from accident statistics and failed miserably! Maybe their arguement would not stand so well in court?

If EASA was claiming safety which is supposed to be their remit but found the the african state not only met but exceeded the EASA states safety as shown in accident stats then what?

But ACCEPTING what you are saying will happen bar an act of God at the last hour what are our options? One is to spend the next 2 years studying and taking 14 useless exams and probably finding in excess of 10K to 15k to convert to licences we dont need to have. (based on the arguement that we already have licences and practically fly in Europe safely already) There would hardly be the motivation or inclination or the bank balance to follow that route.
Many of us are very experienced jet pilots in our fiftees not the best at taking in how many molecules make up a windscreen

Firstly myself and many other commercial pilots will loose our jobs. The owners would employ dual rated pilots to take our positions.

We would have to find 10K plus to convert, some with FAA who like my first officer would fail the EASA eye sight test and hence class 1 would be out for good. All this created by EASA against citizens carrying out their rightful business.
My owner would want to retain me but at what cost. He would be forced elswhere.

What course is open to these Europeans to sue EASA for their losses?

Secondly what are the workarounds? Some here say it wont be a problem for the corporate jet owners who would locate offshore. I cannot see this!
If Joe Blogs investments are based in London then they will not want their jet based anywhere else but London. The positioning costs would be Horrendous from offshore.

The only workaround I could see would be through an operating company based in say IOM. Either the pilot /operator would be employed by IOM Operations as their agent or all operational requests would have to route via a computer link at IOM operations. IE flight plans would route to IOM operations and then to Brussels.

Any IDEAS?

Pace

[IO540]

Pace

Firstly I think it would be wrong to discuss the more subtle workaround openly - even if the legislation had already got past the final closed-session EU stage (which it has not yet) and was drafted into something less ambiguous (which it hasn't yet either).

But the location of the aircraft and the location/residence/citizenship of the pilots is probably not relevant. If the word "operator" is ever defined, it will have to be something like whoever has effective control of where the aircraft goes.

In a corporate scenario, it should be easy to separate the operator from the aircraft itself, in terms of location.

Less easy with the common light GA single owner pilot scenario. But I can immediately think of a work-around, for a GA case where there are multiple pilots...

I really suggest one stops worrying about this for the moment.

You (or anybody else) is not going to pick up a JAA PPL/IR or CPL/IR before this garbage is converted into law, so there is no point in working out what to do.

I thought about getting on with the 7 IR exams, but they may not be valid under some new EASA regime and they expire after 3 years anyway. A good friend of mine in Europe (a bizjet pilot) has a national (non JAA) ATPL for which he had to sit all the then exams but now, to continue flying, they are making him do the JAA ATPL and they have disregarded everything he has done previously, and he has to do the 14 exams from scratch. And this is a supposedly civilised country in N Europe... a gold plating load of t0ssers. He has spent months already and is still getting only low marks in the computer tests (like all real pilots he is not 21 - how many BA Nigels would pass the 14 do you think? 5%?).

Let's see what happens. The sh*t is really going to hit the fan, because even now perhaps 90% of affected pilots have no clue about this proposal.

[VMC-on-top]

To take an extreme example suppose I, as a UK citizen, travel to a nameless country in darkest Africa where I obtain my nameless country HGV licence, (no test just pay $ 3 to the man behind the desk) and buy a lorry. The lorry is largely held together with string, the brakes are wooden blocks and the tyres are bald - all perfectly legal in nameless country. I return to the UK with it and use it to ferry my children and all of their class mates to and from school. The argument "But it's perfectly legal in nameless country where it is registered, it complies with their DoT requirements and it's much cheaper than your system" is not likely to cut much ice.

The analogy doesn't quite add up though. The EASA argument is that it is perfectly legal, perfectly acceptable for the resident of that African country to come, with this lorry held together with string etc and his tuppence licence, to the UK and drive it around. No problem with that at all. However, EASA are saying that if you reside here, then it is.

Sounds like a case of double standards to me.

[IO540]

Yes, nobody and especially not EASA is suggesting that this is anything to do with safety.

The 'operator residence' thing is a pure job creation/protection measure for the usual axe grinders who have been compaigning against foreign reg ops for decades.

It has as much consistency as saying to a 5 year old 'You can't have that ice cream because you are wearing green trousers'.

The unelected politicians pushing this obviously couldn't care less what anybody thinks of them. What a cynical job...

[Pace]

10540. I am not worrying more concerned (subtle difference) My main feelings are ones of anger and injustice. I too think there is not a lot we can do until we know how this plays out. Really There should be 1000 pilots shouting and screaming and burning placards of EASA outside their offices with all the media in attendance :ugh: Prpblem is we are such a fragmented bunch so it's all down to AOPA. Thinking about it a large Hot AIr Balloon landing outside their offices with " EASA stop destroying aviation in Europe " would generate the publicity :E

[proudprivate]

Nothing on the Commission's agenda, which met yesterday.
Nothing on the Council's agenda
Nothing on EASA's website, apart from the draft regulation

[IO540]

Anyone got a source for the alleged date with destiny being 13th/14th

Among many, here (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/101005easa.html).

[Cathar]

alleged voting date

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing on the Commission's agenda, which met yesterday.
Nothing on the Council's agenda
Nothing on EASA's website, apart from the draft regulation

The Implementing Rules are adopted by a Regulatory Committee consisting of officials from the Member State governments and chaired by officials of the Commission. There are lots of such committee meeting (on a wide range of subjects) each day and they do not appear to make the agendas for such meetings public.

[proudprivate]

The Implementing Rules are adopted by a Regulatory Committee consisting of officials from the Member State governments and chaired by officials of the Commission. There are lots of such committee meeting (on a wide range of subjects) each day and they do not appear to make the agendas for such meetings public.


But I don't understand which legislative procedure is being followed here. If it is a Commission Decision (in whatever form or procedure, i.e. oral, written, ...), it HAS TO BE on the agenda of the Commission.

If 13th/14th are hearings, I assume experts from industry or national delegates can contribute, but then nothing can be decided or adopted on these days, which means that we still have time to write to our MEP, or, if it is a pure Commission affair, to Siim Kallas, the transportation commissioner, or to your "national" commissioner, which for the UK would be Barones Ashton.

If it is a hearing organised by EASA, you would expect to find something on the EASA website, or otherwise on the website of the DG for Transportation, from which the agency EASA is depending. It doesn't make sense to have a hearing in secret.

So far, the only source is an (I)AOPA website. I cannot imagine, unless democracy is really astray in Europe, that such a far reaching and important decision can be taken without anyone seeing an official reference first.

Can we please have another attempt at finding an official European reference for this ? It will also help when you write to your commissioner (which incidentally, WILL reply, as part of good administrative practice).

[IO540]

One chap to write to might be Zoltan Kazatsay (http://www.flighttrainingnews.co.uk/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:easa-gets-its-wings-clipped&catid=1:news&Itemid=2) :)

He is above EASA in authority and it very much sounds like he is well cheesed off with them.

EASA stuck a finger up to the higher authority and is making the best of its budget while the money is flowing... quite normal really; most people would do the same.

For such a public rebuff, he is suprisingly closely involved in EASA - see page 17 here (http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/g/doc/About_EASA/Manag_Board/2009/EASA%20MB%2004-2009%20Minutes%20MB%2003-2009.pdf). This is just weird... imagine publishing such a scathing press release (http://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/pid1000992.html) and at the same time be attending EASA board meetings.

His email appears to be zoltan.kazatsay ( at ) ec.europa.eu

I cannot imagine, unless democracy is really astray in Europe, that such a far reaching and important decision can be taking without anyone seeing an official reference first.Well, if I was trying to push through something really controversial and nasty, that's exactly what I would do. Especially if I thought my days are numbered anyway...

It is a mistake to think of EASA as related to aviation. This is pure politics. Politics of power, expense budgets, envy, and pandering to anti American and FTO job creation/protection attitudes.

[belowradar]

Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots

Don't agree with this comment, we loose people not due to lack of infrastructure but due to over regulation. As a JAR instructor I note that there is more demand for FAA IR instructors and I see US Instructors coming to Europe to work. I would prefer to see the European flight training market as strong and vibrant as the Americvan and I suspect that the way to achieve this is a rethink on the current status quo. We need strong and equal rules for European pilots and our jobs are just as important as any other countries citizens.

I am a big fan of USA approach to aviation and would love to see that approach replicated in Europe, we need sensible rules, tough enforcement of those rules and a more equal status in bilateral agreements.

Europe needs to show some pragmatic leadership and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I feel that the EURO US balance is currently tipped too far in favour of USA and we need to get the balance right as it affects our jobs freedoms as European citizens and incomes.

Lets face it a loss of US trade and business income would be an increase in Euro trade and industry, I don't think many JAR qualified pilots will view the proposals as a bad thing for job creation in Eurozone.

I do think that the best solution is mutual recognition of licenses and a European training and licensing system that closely resembles the pragmatic FAA approach.

[IO540]

Don't agree with this commentIt is actually true that there is very poor support in Europe for a SE IR. Nearly the whole FTO business is ME only.

Of course, if one dispensed with the stupid and pointless requirement to use an FTO..... ;)

Lets face it a loss of US trade and business income would be an increase in Euro trade and industryNot necessarily; if you increase the barrier to US training you will just get a lot of people not bothering at all.

I was flying VFR 2001-2006. That is how long it took me to get around to doing the IR, in between having a "life" etc. And I was not budget-limited in any way...

An IR is a huge project. For most adult pilots it is the biggest project they will do in their life. Make it harder and a lot of people won't bother. Especially as an IR is tightly linked to aircraft ownership (most people have no access to suitable hardware on the rental scene, and the few who have are paying ~ £300/hr for an SR22 which is about 3x the DOC of my similarly capable TB20).

If they are "instrument capable" they will just fly VFR in IMC if necessary (I know quite a bit about that too, like most pilots of capable hardware.................).

The problem with VFR is that much of virtually empty and unused European airspace, which under ICAO should be open to VFR, is closed due to local ATC stupidity, and that leads to low level flight, and low level flight (say below FL100) is often in IMC...

Making an IR harder is just stupid, no matter which way you look at it, and FTO job protection is way way way down the list of prioroties on this one.

I do think that the best solution is mutual recognition of licenses and a European training and licensing system that closely resembles the pragmatic FAA approachI think everybody with a brain who flies for real agrees with that, which is precisely why it won't happen. The Eurocrats just say "we are Europeans, we must have European regulation" and the debate is closed. They are happy to rip off FAA certification and other regs, often without even renumbering the paragraphs, but will not have an IR "like the FAA one" because "FAA" is a dirty word in European regulatory circles.

The huge challenge on the "Euro PPL IR" is to develop a product which is basically like the FAA one (training requirements, no need for an FTO, appropriate theory, etc) but which none of the morons associate with the FAA one :ugh:

[Pace]

Below Radar

I cannot agree with you regarding training. The costs in europe are so high not just because of the cost of fuel and heavy taxes but also because of over regulation and the burocracy machine.

Flight training used to be carried out at our famous flight school at Oxford.
That was palmed out to the USA with Oxford students completing their ground studies at Oxford and then heading to the USA for their flight training.

The whole European system is so cost unfriendly that I am surprised anyone can afford to fly private in Europe.

Pace

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

I think you may be out of date.

Training in America is definitely less expensive, but the differentials are nothing like what they were say ten years ago. Look up the cost of MEP hire State side and its now around 2/3rd the cost here.

Now I agree costs add up. Then there is the theory nonesense connected with doing a Euro style IR. However you can do the the flying part of a Euro IR for less than £11k. What would an FAA IR cost these days?

I think Europe is part way to having the infra structure but I agree is sinking under a burden of over regulation.

The fact of the matter is private pilots are just that - they dont fly commercially and they fly in their spare time for enjoyment. If you force them to attend residential courses (when they could do the same thing at their local club), force them to take exams at Gatwick (when they could take the same exams at their local club), etc you end up with pilots who just cant be bothered because they have neither the time or resources. You also end up with pilots who are less safe to go about their business.

When I started flying you hardly ever saw an N reg. I dont know exactly why. Were they less popular in those days? Had people not realised the advantages they convey? Now days it seems almost every private pilot with an IR is on the N reg. Back then it was rare to come across a pilot with an IR. If this isnt resolved we will return to those days - Europe will become a hinterland for only VFR operations amoung the private operators.

People like Jim Thorpe have much to answer for. Why the PPL/IR organisation allow him to represent them escapes me. However, they give creditability to this nonesense and that, to me at any rate, is a great worry.

[IO540]

I would just say that an FAA IR will always cost much less than a JAA IR (ab initio in both cases) because in the vast majority of cases the candidate has instrument time already. Almost everybody I personally know who did the FAA IR already has the IMCR and 50+ hrs of instrument time, of which a good 25 was dual. With the JAA IR this means nothing. With the FAA IR, it is all allowed, and you just need to be good enough for the checkride. That's a big part of the reason why my FAA IR cost about 1/4 of what it would cost to do it in the UK. If I had done the 50hr JAA one I would just be banging airways around Bournemouth (etc) to clock up the 50hrs, learning actually very little. The ground school also represents a huge cost in the time, for anybody with a job - probably £10k-£30k for a businessman.

Edit: I think N-regs are more popular because aviation knowledge is mode widespread now, due to the internet. Nearly all relevant aviation knowledge is not imparted on pilots by instructors; it is transferred peer to peer between pilots. When I was doing my PPL 2000-2001, absolutely nobody mentioned the N-reg option to me, and I was looking at the IR from day 1, across 2 schools and maybe 10 instructors. I did not discover it until about 2003, from an N-reg pilot, and that was online. Pilots who do real long distance touring etc don't hang out at airport bars, and the instructors don't fly much themselves.

[Justiciar]

There is a fundamental difference in ethos between Europe and the US which extends way beyond aviation. It is staggering that even in the midst of severe recession few politicians argue for a sustained and sweaping removal of regulation as a way of stimulating economic growth.

It is not difficult to see how this would apply across the board in GA (not to mention commercial) to stimulate the industry. The process is really quite clear: Maintenance less regulated = cheaper cost of ownership = more people fly and more people buy = more jobs in flight training and sales of aircraft and more sales of avgas and business for maintenance organisations = more people train to be instructors and engineers and train to obtain PPLs. Likewise, you can to the equation the other way with cheeper trainig cost = more people flying, having licenses and being willing and able to afford a lower cost IR and aeroplanes etc. The whole process ripples out through connected industries.

The raison d'etre for bureaucrats is to produce rules and regulations and suggesting to them that they may like to make fewer rules is the equivalent of inviting the turkey to walk into the oven. it won't happen. It takes political will. Maybe the coalition have that will, with their slashing of quangos; who knows :confused: Europe almost certainly doesn't have the will because over regulation is the norm and is a convenient shield to avoid personal responsibility at almost every level. Invitations to consider reduced regulation in the face of economic meltdown are met with incredulity and to many in Europe the answer to the crisis is actually more regulation as what the've got clearly isn't enough:ugh:

[Pace]

Justiciar

I totally agree with you. Looking at the UK we lost most of our production jobs and relied on the square mile, the service industry and government jobs when the milk and honey was flowing.
That suited our then government who wanted the BIG STATE and were happy to job create by setting up all the quangos, burocrats, regulators etc.
The square mile collapsed leaving what? All these groups have to regulate to survive otherwise they have no jobs. The fact that they were artificially created and NOT wealth creating has left a major problem today!
The same goes with Europe.
Old Mrs T wanted to remove government intervention as far as possible and that was reversed big time through the last government.The problem we have is that 20% of jobs were created this way. They are a costly luxury which the enduser has to pay for. That is what is so difficult to remove today when we cannot afford it.

Pace

[englishal]

What would an FAA IR cost these days?
Say 45 hrs x $170 per hour in a DA40 dual/wet = £4,785 in today's money.

PLus of course the $90 ground exam (as opposed to £1000 ground school + £70x7(?) exams = £1490)

Plus $400 examiner fee ( as opposed to 170A costs plus about £650 examiner fee)

PLus incidentals (TSA / Visa if applicable) $250

I have not included approach and landing fees in this as they would apply if training for the FAA IR in the UK too, but can be avoided by flying in the USA.

When all is said and done, an FAA IR could cost £6000 from scratch as opposed to £12490 for a JAA IR.

There is NO increase in safey by paying £6490 more for your IR, that is fact.

[Fuji Abound]

I would just say that an FAA IR will always cost much less than a JAA IR (ab initio in both cases) because in the vast majority of cases the candidate has instrument time already.


Yes, that is a good point. My original post was directed at the real ab initio pilot.

Mind you given there is no such thing as a free lunch (well not in aviation at any rate) the pilot has paid for his IMCr or other instrument training so it would be unreasonable to exclude this from the cost - it is just a different way of paying.

Of course it is a farce that the same credit is not given for the IMCr. That may change with the EIR, but I dont hold out much hope.

[proudprivate]

Fuji Abound :
What would an FAA IR cost these days?

I completed my FAA IR in Europe for a total cost of about € 9000 last year, which included about 50 hours of dual instruction, landing fees etc...
(€150 plane rental, €40 / h instruction fee)

At the time, I had to go to the states for the exam, because the Europe FAA DPE was unavailable (I did my FAA PPL in Norwich), which added another € 1500 EUR to the cost (flight + stay + aircraft familiarization over there + exam fees). This was not cost optimized.

The € 150 rental over here compares to $ 110 rental in the Mid-West, but it is of course much more convenient to get your flight training here. In addition, my FAA instructor learned me procedural specifics about European IFR flight. I understand that the FAA DPE in Europe also includes specific European twists, both in the oral and the checkride.

N-regs are more popular because
1) Obtaining a medical is less cumbersome, especially for under 40's
2) The training material and examination requirements are much more accessible and clear and the IR is obtainable and maintainable by non-professionals.
3) There used to be a VAT advantage in ownership (legacy issue)

Overall, there is a huge difference in attitude towards private flying in Europe and the US. European policy makers tend to see it as a "sport" or "hobby" and fail to perceive it as a way of travel.

Justiciar:
The raison d'etre for bureaucrats is to produce rules and regulations and suggesting to them that they may like to make fewer rules is the equivalent of inviting the turkey to walk into the oven. it won't happen.

Mmmm. This doesn't explain the differences in efficiency between the US and Europe, as they are bureaucrats on both sides of the atlantic. The European problem is more that aviation is often linked to the military, making it very much a member state issue, complicating harmonization. Look at the airspace structure in Europe, for example. The common denominator that everyone can agree upon is then often an overly complicated overregulated outcome. Add to that some misguided lobbying (the UK is not without sin here) on job-creation and protectionism and there you have it. I doubt whether dragging Mrs T back in is bound to make things better.

Just my $0.02 (added to the €10500 :)).

[Fuji Abound]

Hence my point - if you compare cost on a like for like basis (it is no good comparing an MEP IR with a SEP IR) there is not as much difference in the cost as you might wish.

I therefore doubt it is a cost thing - it is everything else that puts people off from doing an EASA IR.

I reckon if you modeled an EASA IR on the FAA system you could still charge 30% more and people would come in their flocks. (well almost).

I just dont think it is a cost thing.

[IO540]

the pilot has paid for his IMCr or other instrument training so it would be unreasonable to exclude this from the cost - it is just a different way of paying.I don't fully agree, because

- you need considerable post-PPL hours before you can start the IR

- you need considerable post-PPL flying experience before you can start the IR, because there is no point in starting it until you are an already very good and accurate VFR pilot

- the IMCR is a very handy halfway step which gives you useful privileges and which is actually usable in a spamcan

The full IR is not generally usable (to the full extent of the extra privileges) in a spamcan because most of the low-end tin cannot hack Eurocontrol airway MEAs etc very well.

So the PPL - IMCR - FAA IR route flows quite naturally, but the PPL - JAA IR route doesn't flow at all because a pilot with (supposedly) zilch instrument experience is now thrown into an expensive FTO process, and I reckon a lot of the 50hrs ends up being poor value for money.

I think this is why the NAA/JAA IR pilot population is so small. It is a lot of work, but it makes no sense until you own your own plane, and it has to be a reasonably good one. And how many people buy a "good" plane for VFR-only? I did, but I had my aim on the IR from day 1 and I made sure I got all the right avionics. Not many people will buy a (e.g.) TB20 or SR22 or DA42 if the only way forward they are facing is 50hrs in an FTO which probably can't do it in their plane anyway. Whereas a lot of pilots have been hacking around on the IMCR, for years, and those (few) who became owners went for the FAA IRs.

The whole Euro IR system is a total c0ckup from day 1, set up primarily to sort the men from the sheep. They may as well send you all for a couple of yours of conscription... 6 months of face down in the mud is good for character building :)

[IO540]

SoCal

This "authorised instructor" bit must have used up 10GB of bandwidth on pilot forums around the world :)

IMHO the only meaning of it, in the context of the largely US-centric FARs, and the specific provision for training outside the USA with foreign instructors, is "any instructor authorised locally to do the training", which is rather self evident...

The minimum IMCR dual time is also 15hrs (typical is 20-25).

You and I and half the world knows that last time I expressed my usual forthright views on this, a well known aviation personality send round an email claiming my training to be fake, etc... but it hardly matters now because what he didn't know is that I had flown 25+hrs with an FAA CFII in the USA which rendered any UK training moot... I suppose one could argue the IMCR instructor ought to hold an ICAO IR (rather than just another IMCR); fair enough and this is not hard to make sure of at the time.

The 250nm X/C flight does require an instructor with an ICAO IR because there is no way to meet the FAR wording without going into European airways. But that flight is only a few hours max, and anyway nobody with an IMCR only will be good enough for the FAA IR checkride, so this is one of the things on which you spend the extra hours. As are the last 3 hrs within 60 days of the checkride, etc.

[Rogerf]

I went the FAA MIR route because I did not want to take 7 exams plus lots of training and ground school for them to learn lots of rubbish that's not relevant to a private pilot.

I believe the skill test is similar for JAA and FAA, so no real difference.

Is the IOM, Guernsey and Jersey an acceptable base for N reg aircraft as all are outside the EEC?

[IO540]

Under present proposals, if they become law as they appear, and if you (the sole owner) live outside the EU, they should not affect you.

[Katamarino]

I have been quoted €6000 just to convert my FAA IR to a JAA one; and that does not include another €1500 for the theory exams.

This is not even at my own flying club (which is expensive even for Holland) - this is at one of the cheaper ones!

On the plus side, it IS tax deductible...so, aviation here is not all bad :)

[IO540]

Not tax deductible over here... except in special situations, of which my accountant could not give me any examples :)

6k euros is OK, especially given the avgas price there...

Egnatia in Greece (LGKV) quote the same, for a DA42-based conversion, and it includes accomodation. There is a flight to LGKV from EGKK every Sunday (maybe not in winter). I have no idea if the UK CAA would accept a Greek (or Spanish) IR onto a UK PPL (not checked yet) but they should.

[TWR]

When I see the quote for the IR exams in UK (€ 1500 !?),
it is clear to me that it's the UK CAA who has a problem with
the PPL/IR iso "Europe". € 1500 for exams ? Really ? That's ridiculous !
I think I paid € 180 or something...

[Katamarino]

The exams are about 80 pounds each (x 7), and the cheapest, mandatory theory course is 1000 pounds.

[BillieBob]

I have no idea if the UK CAA would accept a Greek (or Spanish) IR onto a UK PPL (not checked yet) but they should.The UK CAA will accept, and include in UK issued JAA licences, ratings from any JAA member state that is recommended for mutual recognition (see here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=90&pageid=3527)). Just make sure that you include a copy of the FTO approval certificate and the examiner's authorisation with the application.

[Justiciar]

This doesn't explain the differences in efficiency between the US and Europe, as they are bureaucrats on both sides of the atlantic

There are bureaucrats everywhere, but the US has a "can do" attitude which ensures that regulation does not defeat the objectives.

Pace: quite agree. It is a sobering thought that even if the coalition reduces public expenditure as much as they want to it will still be higher than after the first year of the Blair government. Getting rid of the bureaucrats and their mutual job creation schemes is more difficult than scraping s**t off your shoes; they are certainly stickier:yuk:

[IO540]

The UK CAA will accept, and include in UK issued JAA licences, ratings from any JAA member state that is recommended for mutual recognition (see here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=175&pagetype=90&pageid=3527)). Just make sure that you include a copy of the FTO approval certificate and the examiner's authorisation with the application.Sorry for asking but can you be 100% sure?

It would be quite a risk.

A while ago when I was looking at some non-UK schools who use UK CAA exam papers, I looked for a guarantee that their CAA will accept UK-sat exams. They all went strangely quiet at that point.

But only an idiot will proceed without being 100% sure. JAA doesn't exist anymore, AIUI.

[hum]

SOOO... Did this Cr*P get voted on today by our Eu Lords and Masters?? - or was it all just a huge wind-up by Pace and IO540??? :}

[englishal]

Under present proposals, if they become law as they appear, and if you (the sole owner) live outside the EU, they should not affect you
is that EU or is that EASA member state???

If it is EU then I can immediately become a non-EU resident by going to "live" in Norway ;) (I already pay considerable tax there)...

[proudprivate]

There are bureaucrats everywhere, but the US has a "can do" attitude which ensures that regulation does not defeat the objectives.

My conversations with the TSA and the US Immigration department didn't give me that impression. A lot of "cover your derrière" attitude, lack of transparency and inconsistent regulation between the FAA and the TSA.

Getting rid of the bureaucrats and their mutual job creation schemes is more difficult than scraping s**t off your shoes; they are certainly stickier

Although I wouldn't formulate it that way, it is certainly the case that parts of the civil service (be it in the UK, Belgium, Europe or wherever) and international organisations tend to perpetuate their existence far beyond their actual purpose or need. Back in 1996, the Belgian ministery of economics was still manning a 6-person call centre to "fill the information gap and help businesses prepare for the EU reforms of 1992" :ok:


One way to change this is to get more actively involved. In this case, writing to the Commission with concrete constructive proposals, speaking to Siim Kallas (who is relatively new on this job as transport commissioner), getting your MEP's into the discussion. By involving the relevant officials and politicians, a bureaucracy can be turned to your advantage. It is not a guaranteed success, but I've seen it work miracles in other domains.

[Fuji Abound]

What surprises me in all this is no one has bothered to kick off a No 10 petition. Yes, it would need a little careful word crafting, but 5,000+ signatures is a persuasive weapon.

[IO540]

is that EU or is that EASA member state???I didn't know there was an EASA member state.

IMHO this has to be EU only, because each country affected will have to file differences under ICAO, and they will have to be forced to do so by the EU, and only the EU is able to do this (on its full members).

Lots of non-EU countries are affiliated in some way to the EU process. For example Egypt uses Eurocontrol to collect its enroute charges.

The EU operator residency is a load of bollox anyway, and your 'tax residency' example illustrates just one fine reason why it is bollox.

[BillieBob]

Sorry for asking but can you be 100% sure?YesA while ago when I was looking at some non-UK schools who use UK CAA exam papers, I looked for a guarantee that their CAA will accept UK-sat exams. They all went strangely quiet at that point.That is an entirely different issue. An applicant who has commenced training (e.g. taken the theoretical knowledge examinations) under the responsibility of one authority may only be permitted to complete the training (e.g. the flight training) under the responsibility of another under certain conditions as described in JAR-FCL 1.065(b). The requirement for one member state to accept ratings obtained in other member states is clearly laid down in JAR-FCL 1.065(c).JAA doesn't exist anymore, AIUI. Whilst it is true that the JAA Liaison Office has closed, the JAA still exists and, more importantly, all of the JAA member states have agreed to continue to conform to the existing Joint Aviation Requirements pending the adoption of the equivalent EU regulations. In particular, the UK CAA is bound by the ANO to conduct its licensing operations in accordance with the JARs and so a refusal to abide by the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.065 would be a breach of UK law.is that EU or is that EASA member state???EASA is an agency of the EU and does not have any 'member states', merely a surfeit of arrogant, self-serving bureaucrats.

[172driver]

is that EU or is that EASA member state???

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK EASA is the successor to JAA. Hence a lot of countries outside he EU involved/affected (perhaps infected would be the better word.....).

[IO540]

That is an entirely different issue. An applicant who has commenced training (e.g. taken the theoretical knowledge examinations) under the responsibility of one authority may only be permitted to complete the training (e.g. the flight training) under the responsibility of another under certain conditions as described in JAR-FCL 1.065(b). The requirement for one member state to accept ratings obtained in other member states is clearly laid down in JAR-FCL 1.065(c).

Assuming that e.g. a Spanish flying school says it accepts UK-sat IR CAA exam passes, what is the process of making sure they are not telling a porky?

AFAIK EASA is the successor to JAA. Hence a lot of countries outside he EU involved/affected (perhaps infected would be the better word.....).

It's a good point but I think if you look at Europe you see every country (except, as described, Denmark) allowing unlimited N-reg operations, and given there must be domestic pressure (FTOs and similar axe grinders) against this in all these places, it follows that the reason the operations are allowed is because of higher level political considerations.

And the only way EASA can push these considerations out of the way is by using the EU powers, and these exist only against full EU members.

Switzerland would be an interesting case. I wonder what deal has been done between the EU or EASA, and Switzerland, to get the EU to put in the 19-seat "complex" definition which is clearly there to support the Swiss-made Pilatus against Beechcraft.

[Pace]

What surprises me in all this is no one has bothered to kick off a No 10 petition. Yes, it would need a little careful word crafting, but 5,000+ signatures is a persuasive weapon.

Fuji

Totally agree! In other industries there would be 1000 people gathered outside the offices of in our case EASA, Demanding to be heard and bearing such a petition with the media arranged to cover the whole thing.

Pilots tend to be solitary individuals and spread far and wide so getting a focus to get such a petition signed would be almost impossible.

I suggested in a seperate thread that PPRUNE was such a focus point.
PPRUNE could have a section where petitions concerning matters which effect us could be placed.

Then we would probably get the 5000 signatures to a letter complaining about EASA and what EASA is doing.

My Thread on petitions hardly drew any interest! Apathy??? apart from maybe a dozen or so of us here who spout off, me included mainly through frustration nothing appears to be bringing us together en masse.

I think as AOPA USA said "united we stand divided we fall". My concern is that we will fall through our own apathy. Sadly an ex RAF pilot posted "If you are about to be raped you might as well smile end enjoy it".
What a defeatist attitude!


PPRUNE SHOULD PUT A FACILITY HERE THAT ALLOWS US TO USE THE FOCUS OF THIS SITE FOR AVIATION MINDED PEOPLE TO EXPRESS OUR WISHES IN PETITION FORM NOT JUST FOR THIS ISSUE BUT ANY ISSUES WHERE WE NEED TO BAND TOGETHER.

This whole EASA Fiasco makes my blood boil may the contents of a thousand asses fall all over them :eek:

Pace

[englishal]

EASA is an agency of the EU
While it may be, the wording in the doc posted earlier refers to "EU". However there are several countries and terratories in Europe NOT members of the EU but EASA members, for example Norway and the Channel Islands. Reading the doc it talks about:

Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation imposes to aircraft registered in a third country
used by EU operators the need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Basic
Regulation.

I have a british passport but could equally well reside in Norway or Alderney and hence no longer be an EU "operator" (assuming they mean me as the beneficial owner of the N reg, despite being "owned" by a US trust) and I can ignore all this EASA stuff. Who can prove where I am resident? It can't be by passport as one can still hold a British Passport yet be resident outside the EU.

Unworkable if you ask me.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

the European Parliament has this to say:

One of the fundamental rights of European citizens:

Any citizen, acting individually or jointly with others, may at any time exercise his right of petition to the European Parliament under Article 194 of the EC Treaty.

Any citizen of the European Union, or resident in a Member State, may, individually or in association with others, submit a petition to the European Parliament on a subject which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects them directly. Any company, organisation or association with its headquarters in the European Union may also exercise this right of petition, which is guaranteed by the Treaty.

It seems to me it would not be difficult to organise an on line petition. Get 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 signatures and it becomes difficult to ignore. We did it before with the IMCr petition to N0 10.

Something like this would be short, sweet and concise. The full petition could be further supported:

The UK and the other European Union civil aviation authorities accept pilot qualifications obtained in the United States of America. EASA has proposed legislation, which if adopted, will make it impossible for European Union citizens to fly in EU airspace on American licences. There is no safety related evidence to support the proposed legislation. IAPOA have described the proposed regulations as “disastrous” and have accused EASA of going “far beyond their safety remit”.

We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the European Parliament not to adopt the legislation and we do hereby petition the European Parliament to permit its citizens to continue to be able to exercise their existing rights to pilot an aircraft within the European Union on the basis of qualifications obtained in the United States of America without hindrance.

It needs a web site and not much more. Pilots could sign up on line, with their address and license kept confidential as appropriate.

[jxc]

I reckon the easiest way to get the signatures would be to send to all the flying clubs or airfields in guides and get put on notice board
Probably wouldn't take much more for a handful of people scattered around to take with them flying and try and pop into a few clubs at weekends and catch pilots there ?

Could one get a Romanian IR with their UK ppl ? they are in EASA i think.
i think cost could be cheaper

I do think alot :E not always a good idea !

[Justiciar]

Fuji: if I were an MEP reading that I think I would say "what's the problem?". Why shouldn't EU citizens hold EU licences to fly in EU airspace. I seems to me that it needs to be more subtle than that. Something along the lines of:


Almost every country in the world allows holders of third country licences to fly aircraft registered in that country in their airspace.

Almost every country in the world has an easy conversion process whereby third country licnces can be converted to local licences on a temporary basis to allow other nationals to fly a country's aircraft.

These rules are based on international conventions in place since 1944 and administered by ICAO

These rules facilitate the free movement of pilots and aircraft between countries at low cost, thereby supporting economic and sporting relations and trade between countries.

The proposals by EASA will remove the first right and severely curtail the second, adding huge cost to EU and foreign operators established in the EU whilst at the same time having no measurable safety benefit. Indeed the resulting reduction in flexibility of commercial operations may have an adverse impact on safety.

These rules if implemented will distort trade between countries, particularly the US and the EU and may reult in retaliatory measures.

[172driver]

Fuji et. al.,

I think you'll have to couch the wording in something that is safety relevant. That tends to get the attention of people.

The proposal as it stands is blatantly counterproductive to aviation safety, as it bars holders of any ICAO IR to fly in Europe and all but slams the door in the face of those EU pilots who would like to attain one. It therefore acts in a detrimental way to flight safety.

I have written roughly along these lines to my MEPs - no answer, but didn't expect one either.

[Pace]

Justiciar

I would to that add about the shear cost not only to commercial pilots who would loose their work and positions as well as having to find many 1000s of Euros to convert as well as the costs to thousands of PPLs who have been operating legally for decades.

PPRUNE is already a natural focus point a new web site is not until everyone knows about it.

Pace

[proudprivate]

We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the European PARLIAMENT...
From documentation I got from IO540 (see previous posts), it appears as if the European Parliament has delegated its powers in this matter to the Commission. Hence the petition should better be directed at the Commissioner for Transport, or the College of Commissioners.

IO540, did I read this correctly ? Or does a petition to the parliament also have merit here ?

The Lisbon Treaty forces the EC to make a legislative proposal, but only after 1,000,000 signatures. It has to investigate the applicability from 100,000 signatures or so...

[VMC-on-top]

Its easy to start a petition to number 10 ..........

Create a new petition | Number10.gov.uk (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/steps)

Over to you.

[Pace]

If Justiciar and Fuji and 10540 who are much more up to the legalities than me put one together we could put a link on all the forums so pilots can go there and sign it :D

Pace

[VMC-on-top]

I also heard a rumour that the decision has been postponed until at least December. I gather this was because the Germans have asked for more details on the economic impact of such a decision.

(Just a rumour, don't ask me where I heard it!).

[proudprivate]

Its easy to start a petition to number 10 ..........


Mmmmm. When you click on "start a petition" you get

"With a new Government in place a review is taking place of online services, including e-petitions. We are committed to improving the e-petitions process and are looking at ways of ensuring that it functions as part of a cohesive approach to public debate and transparent government. A full announcement on how we plan to use these and other services across Government will be made as soon as this important work is completed.
Existing e-petitions, submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. E-petitions that were live at the time of the election announcement on 6 April, when the e-petitions system was suspended, will therefore not be reopened for signatures. We are issuing responses to petitions that had exceeded the 500 signatures threshold as of 6 April 2010 and these can be viewed on the HMG e-petitions responses page. (http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses.aspx)
We will welcome resubmission on issues of concern to the improved e-petitions system when it is launched later in 2010."

[IO540]

I also heard a rumour that the decision has been postponed until at least December.

Yes, I have seen a reply from an MEP saying it was postponed due to the impact on foreign pilots.

Gosh, this is really amazing. What possible impact could there be. Had to be something pretty small for this proposal to get so far and for nobody to have thought of it :ugh:

Good news, anyway :ok:

I gather this was because the Germans have asked for more details on the economic impact of such a decision

That bit I did not hear. But Germany, along with the UK, is the biggest N-reg player in Europe. France is #3.

I am sure we will hear more shortly...

[Justiciar]

I would to that add about the shear cost not only to commercial pilots who would loose their work

A very good point; the job loss aspect should be pushed as well as the economic one of businesses moving outside the EU. They are already sensitive to the whole process of off shoring with business migrating to the less regulated far east.

[Fuji Abound]

The No 10 petition has been suspended pending the Tweedles sorting themselves out. I did think about the petitioning our PM but arguably this is already out of our Government's hands.

The wording of the petition would need careful thought. However petitons to the EU Parliament can be fully supported. I would suggest the headline petition should be short and sweet with the more reasoned argument consigned to the supporting document.

With regards to directing the petition to the Commission I dont see there is a facility to do so - although I guess you can do what you like.


The Lisbon Treaty forces the EC to make a legislative proposal, but only after 1,000,000 signatures. It has to investigate the applicability from 100,000 signatures or so...


Are you suggesting the Commission can ignore a petition from a minority Group?


Whether anyone wants to run with this is another matter.

[David Roberts]

Repeat of my post 'elsewhere':

Firstly, the EASA Opinion on FCL has gone to the Commission for consideration by the EASA committee (of member state official representatives - in UK case, the DfT) at a meeting on 13th and 14th October. The European Parliament is not involved at this stage. Once the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted the FCL implementing rules then the Parliament has the right to scrutinise them. This is one of the additional powers granted to the Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty. This is not an automatic process. The Parliament needs to be alerted to take an interest 'in the file'. I understand from a source close to the process that many letters have arrived with MEPs over the FRA issue, but the MEPs have been very confused by the authors of some of the letters in which it is suggested that the Parliament was about to vote on FCL. Which is not the case. An example of people firing off without knowledge of the process.
Before we wind up MEPs we need to see what the EASA committee at the Commission has adopted first and then we know what to ask MEPs to argue for, alerting them in advance to the forthcoming need to scrutinise the proposals.

Anyway, the EASA committee has this week deferred any vote on FCL until its December meeting. My source tells me there are likely to be some structural changes on the LAPL and Basic LAPL, but no changes are expected to Annex III (FRA issues).
The results of this meeting this week should be published on the EU website in the next week or two.

'Angry' petitions are all very well, but from my experience the more effective method is a well constructed case submitted to MEPs at the right time, preferably through a representative body such as IAOPA / AOPA / EAS, or similar, with advance notice of an upcoming opportunity to scrutinise a Commission proposal. Which is what we do regularly in EAS with the help of professional lobbyist in Brussels. Representing hundreds of thousands of pilots.

[IO540]

no changes are expected to Annex III (FRA issues).

That would be, relatively speaking, a waste of time.

It is also very different to what has been reported elsewhere.

[bookworm]

I think this article (http://blog.aopa.org/asfblog/?p=1182) by Bruce Landsberg explains some of what is happening behind the scenes.

[IO540]

My understanding is that that is a part of it. But a bigger part has been US legislation which was passed to restrict the authorisation of FAA Repair Stations outside the USA; this came in following a lot of these setting up in South America which caused a lot of business to be lost to US based ones. The side effect of this law has been a restriction on FAA RSs in Europe. And while FAA Repair Stations are not relevant to light GA (except for the 2-yearly altimeter check) they are mandatory for jet ops, and this is high value business. And US labour is a big issue over there.

What EASA has been trying to do is just plain illogical. The USA is a big country with a big and largely self sufficient economy. They have nothing to gain from a bilateral treaty - especially one with a bullying outfit which openly dislikes US aviation and whose terms of reference run counter to everything which America's founders fought for. Never underestimate the emotional impact of this stuff.

The Eurocrats are a bunch of self proclaimed stuck-up intellectually superior creatures who hate everything American and make no secret of it. But you cannot go spitting in somebody's soup and then expect them to sign a treaty especially one which doesn't bring them anything worthwhile.

Peoples' Republic of Congo would have loads to gain from a bilateral aviation treaty with the EU, but not the USA...

[janbrill]

If EU/EASA thinks they can bully the FAA into a Billateral Agreement by lashing out at their own people by means of restricting Third-Country-Aircraft and Licenses, they're delusional.

Frankly, the whole process doesn't make any sense to me.

The consequences of a FRA-ban will be borne (in order of gravity) by:

- EU-Pilots flying on a US medical: They will simply get kicked out of GA.
- Foreigners living in the EU for 1+ years: They will in practice be denied the use of their a/c
- EU-Pilots flying on a US IFR: They will have to undergo major retraining & expense or fly VFR
- Owners of US-aircraft with STCs/337s not certifiable in the EU: They will get hit in resale value, even if they can leave their a/c n-reg
- US-Flightschools: They will loose almost all business from Europe
- US-Manufacturers (Airframe & Avionics): They will loose all n-reg-only business in the EU

This is pure madness. Even if the issue hangs in limbo for another year and then some compromise is reached, the ambiguity of the situation effects personal and economic decissions right now: Should I buy the new Cirrus SR22T (n-reg-only)? Should I get my IFR-rating? Where? Should I put a glass-cockpit into my n-reg-airplane? Should I buy a C90 and maybe get hit by complex-rules or a PC12 and fly single engine?

regards,
Jan Brill
Managing Editor
Pilot und Flugzeug

[172driver]

- [reference to an AOPA letter] For EU residents using a non-EU licence on a non-EU registered aircraft.....the committee agreed that the pressure on the USA for a Bilateral Air Safety Agreement (BASA) should be kept up. Information from the FAA was noted that a BASA could be signed next spring. If not, until April 2013 for alternatives.

So here we have it black on white - NOTHING to do with safety, EVERYTHING with political grandstanding and brinkmanship of some little Europeans. :yuk:

PS: the above is an excerpt of an AOPA article, referenced by Mike Cross in the other thread here.

[Fuji Abound]

David


but the MEPs have been very confused by the authors of some of the letters in which it is suggested that the Parliament was about to vote on FCL.


Is it just me that feels sorry for them for being confused?

To be blunt it is absolutely pathetic that our elected representatives cant be bothered to understand the issues when a pile of emails land on their desks and expects the average pilot in the street to understand the inner workings of the European Parliament.

Pathetic. They clearly need a large kick up the empannage if this is really the state we have reached as a little persuasion to get off their back sides, pick up the 'phone, and ask someone what the hell this is about. It is not difficult.

of course perhaps this sorry lot need spoon feeding.

In industry they would last -- let me see, about as long as Lord Sugar takes to say you are fired.

[IO540]

It is also not in the interests of certain parties to get the MEPs too involved ;)

[Justiciar]

To be blunt it is absolutely pathetic that our elected representatives cant be bothered to understand the issues when a pile of emails land on their desks and expects the average pilot in the street to understand the inner workings of the European Parliament.

Very well said. This is an issue with all politicians at all levels of legislation. As a lawyer it always amuses me when politicians get on their soap boxes railing against lawyers and judges exposing and exploiting loopholes and bad drafting in half cocked legislation that they passed or allowed to pass through parliament.

I do agree though that the best chance of burying this nonsense is measured response put at the highest level with the consequences being clearly spelt out, as Jan has done above.

[IO540]

Jan's post above is bang on.

The "highest level" now means not EASA but the EU and the associated legislative processes. EASA is out of the picture now, and anyway they have shown beyond any doubt that they couldn't care less what most stakeholders think.

[Justiciar]

Certainly it is a case of engaging with the political process, which EASA is not part of. I think that the EU is loosing credibility even in the more die hard parts of Europhilia and there is the beginnings of a realisation that the costs to businesses of compliance with all the EU regulations is becoming politically unacceptable.

[IO540]

I think that the EU is loosing credibility even in the more die hard parts of Europhilia and there is the beginnings of a realisation that the costs to businesses of compliance with all the EU regulations is becoming politically unacceptable.

I only wish that were true :)

(REACH, ROHS, some other bollox which has no evidential basis when applied to electronic manufacturing and is now a 100% ar*se covering exercise passing from one company to its supplier and then to its supplier etc).

[peter272]

Quite

We now have a government that clearly states that they will resist further handover of powers to Europe.

Personally I'll believe it when I see it, but they need to be made well aware of what is happening with EASA regulations.

But I was horrified to read in the Oct AOPA magazine about what happened when a government minister in an earlier regime was told about the much cheaper courses in the US and elsewhere. Dawn Primarolo (for it was she) said, well go there then.

I would doubt the current government is much different, but I'm willing to be convinced

[gyrotyro]

A useful link....

THE NOVEMBER POOL - The N-Flyers Community (http://www.november.aero/)

[BillieBob]

In the above link AOPA implies that the EASA Part-FCL proposal on licensing requirements for third country aircraft has been rejected by the EC - this is not my understanding. AFAIK the EC's EASA committee has simply deferred the vote on Part-FCL until its December meeting with no indication that any changes have been or will be made to Annex III. It would be wise to wait for the minutes of the meeting to be published before opening the champagne.

[IO540]

Sure it is too early to celebrate anything, but this looks like a victory for now because EASA was hoping to sneak this one in, and now the whole thing will be examined in a lot more detail. More time to lobby, too.

[proudprivate]

I just joined the November-pool. If it doesn't help, it doesn't hurt.

Agree with Billiebob, looks as if this is not a won battle, just a postponement.

Also, I have confirmation of the direct link between the Annex III - thing and the (non-compliance of the Americans with) the 2008 bilateral agreement.

Some legal questions I was struggling with :
- Is a regulatory committee vote sufficient to turn this into law, or does the Commission (i.e. the College of Commissioners) have to adopt it afterwards ? Or was the parliamentary delegation given directly to an "EASA committee" ?
- Can the European Parliament Transportation Committee (or the Plenary Session of the European Parliament) revoke its earlier delegation, so that they can have another reading (with amendments) ?
- Can we, should the hated regulation get adopted, challenge such a decision before the Court of First Instance (preferably by speedy procedure) ?

Any legal light on this would be welcomed.

[Pace]

I am ready to give explanations on condition, however, that you first make at least some effort to find out what the issue really is about before sending us a series of false allegations. Following portion of letter removed Name of replier removed
Head-of-Unit Aviation Safety

European Commission

I wrote quite an angry letter to the Commision and have written back in a more conciliiatory way so maybe I may get the Explanation!keep you posted.
I have removed the name of the of the person who replied as well as the rest of the reply letter and just posted the relevant bit! fingers crossed. At least I got a reply and may get an explanation because I am at a loss as why?

Pace

[IO540]

Can we, should the hated regulation get adopted, challenge such a decision before the Court of First Instance (preferably by speedy procedure) ?There are a number of people who have had legal advice saying the proposals are indeed vulnerable to a challenge, on various grounds.

I won't say any more, even if I find out more. There would not be a useful purpose. If these proposals do become law, we obviously want any vulnerabilities to remain.

I have been told by an aviation lawyer that EASA quite possibly did not get legal advice while drafting this garbage. This suprised me... I was sure they were politically naive but I did not think they were that stupid.

We shall see.

[Cathar]

- Is a regulatory committee vote sufficient to turn this into law, or does the Commission (i.e. the College of Commissioners) have to adopt it afterwards ? Or was the parliamentary delegation given directly to an "EASA committee" ?

According to Article 65 of the EASA Regualtion (216/2008) the procedure to be followed in this case is Article 5(a) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:200:0011:0013:EN:PDF). If the Committee votes in favour, the Commission is obliged to adopt the Regulation unless with three months the Parliament or the Council oppose it on the grounds that it exceeds "the implementing powers provided for in the basic instrument or that the draft is not compatible with the aim or the content of the basic instrument or does not respect the principles of subsidiarity or proportionality."

Can the European Parliament Transportation Committee (or the Plenary Session of the European Parliament) revoke its earlier delegation, so that they can have another reading (with amendments)

The power for the Commission to make the Regualtions with the assistance of the EASA Committee is in the EASA Regulation. The Regulation would need to be changed to remove this power from the Commission. Of course, only the Commission can bring forward draft legislation. The Regulation is made under the co-decision procedure so the power to change it rests equally with the Council and the Parliament who must agree.

[IO540]

Here (http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/pplir_files/pplir%20rwg%20-%20easa%20and%20fra%20v21.pdf) is a useful summary of the present situation from PPL/IR Europe.

It was written before the very recent developments of the 15th October; rumours purporting to be from that meeting suggest that certain elements of EASA FCL were chucked out.

[BillieBob]

rumours purporting to be from that meeting suggest that certain elements of EASA FCL were chucked out.My information is that the Basic LAPL and the LAFI were removed but no action was taken on the third country licensing issue.

Let us not forget that the requirement for pilots of third country aircraft whose operators are based in the EU to comply with Part-FCL is already in force, being included in Article 4 of the Basic Regulation. The point at issue is that Part-FCL does not include a simple way for third country licence holders to convert those licences, other than the procedures detailed in Annex III to the Cover Regulation. If this bit of Part FCL were 'chucked out', it would only make things worse by removing what minimal concessions have been proposed.

What is required is either a fundamental re-write of Annex III to provide a sensible option for conversion of third-country licences (unlikely as it would have to apply equally to all third country licences) or ratification of the pre-existing EU/FAA Bilateral Agreement, which depends, as Pace has discovered, on the FAA Re-authorisation Act (now passed by the the House of Representatives) failing to make it into law.

Since it has now become clear that this is little more than an unseemly pi$$ing contest between the EU and the US Congress, it is unlikley that any sensible, safety-based intervention is going to make a great deal of difference.

[IO540]

However, it is EASA which has made the otherwise rather meaningless connection between the pi$$ing contest and pilot licensing.

They could just as well tie this FCL initiative to whether the USA lets Toyota open a factory in some US town; it would be about as relevant.

The existing legislation (already passed) is very vague on the FRA issue and IMHO meaningless in practice.

[proudprivate]

They could just as well tie this FCL initiative to whether the USA lets Toyota open a factory in some US town; it would be about as relevant.


Invariably it made me think of a hostage type situation, in which we are taken hostage.

In international negotiations, it is quite common to bargain with relatively unrelated matters. A textbook example is France denying the late Pulkovo charter slots at French airports in order to obtain a more reasonable Russian stance on Siberia overflight issues for Air France. So I'm not surprised that Europe wants to retaliate if the US deny European workshops some of the Jet maintenance business (or whatever the issue at hand could be).

What is new here, is that EASA and by extension the European Commission now seem willingly and knowingly hurt a significant number of EU pilots and businesses in order to obtain their goal. Chances for a "Stockholm-syndrome" are rather remote, in this case.

In addition, fighting this powerplay through legislative proposals that are very rigid to adapt once enacted is inefficient. The vertical relationships are too stretched and the stakeholder community too diverse to obtain an acceptable outcome. It horrifies me to hear that committee members wanted too "keep up the pressure on the US regarding Annex III".

[IO540]

In international negotiations, it is quite common to bargain with relatively unrelated matters.

Indeed; a bit like Town & Country Planning, where different applications fronted by the same planning consultant are traded...

In a perverse way this is a good thing in this case because there is no real connection between the FRA issue and all the other US v. EU stuff (see the other thread).

So the EU could simply climb down on the FRA stuff (which IMHO has to happen one way or the other anyway otherwise a massive amount of s**t is going to hit the fan in the light jet business) and find some other issue to bother the Americans with.

[much2much]

The bureaucracy astonishes (well not really) me i just asked about converting my life ppl ,and told i need to retake rt,i held CAA cpl/ir for 20 years(expired but well used)and hold FAA comm /inst ,
So i thought i might just fly on that, if they really feel in the interest of safety after years in/out H/row and on the Atlantic i need a RT retest they are capable of any s88t
May be a petition as said or fly illegally, trouble is while i think there is a lot to learn from the FAA/US we have also caught the litigation/sue bug so not sure about doing that
**** !!??? And for the bigger picture where can i find the relevent information on these proposals now it,s gained my intrest???

[Mike Cross]

**** !!??? And for the bigger picture where can i find the relevent information on these proposals now it,s gained my intrest??? Draft Regulation on FCL (http://www.joinaopa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=267:draft-regulation-on-fcl&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=247)

and also read the other news items on that site.

[IO540]

It's important to appreciate that only the Basic Reg (http://www.easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/doc/Regulation/reg_216_2008/BR216_2008.pdf) is law at present.

This is a very vague document which (as far as the N-reg issue goes) is essentially meaningless by itself. It was written in the "we support world peace and an end to all poverty" style in order to get everybody to vote for it (the Eurocrats aren't stupid). Additional detailed regs will then be loaded on top of it, and it is these that will (or may) do the damage.