EU Pilot certification rules

[boofhead]

I find this really funny. The US has always had these requirements, and has never met it's ICAO responsibilities for licencing. They will not recognise any foreign licence or rating and require a full ground and flight course for everyone, no matter what licences and ratings he/she might have on a foreign licence. The most you will get is recognition of experience (flight time, instructor time etc). Now they bleat because Europe is proposing to do the same to them? Gimme a break!

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.

[Thomascl605]

Yes Boofhead, you may laugh but I suggest you check out the Bizjet forum on here. Potentially thousands of Pilots both US and European Citizens resident in the EU, flying N reg on FAA licences may lose their jobs if this becomes law.

That doesn't take into account the many thousands of other personnel that would lose their jobs working for the companies that manage these Aircraft.

Think before you type :rolleyes:

[IO540]

They will not recognise any foreign licence or rating and require a full ground and flight course for everyone, no matter what licences and ratings he/she might have on a foreign licence.

Incorrect. The FAA hands out "based on" PPLs and IRs readily. The PPL is a 61.75 one and the IR is a foreign pilot exam.

Europe could do the same but they choose to run various restrictive practices instead.

[koi]

This is simply devine news.

I can scarse conceal my schadenfreude.

If this EASA vote confirms the adoption of EU Pilot certification rules, it will go a long way in redressing the huge imbalence existing between Europe and the US. Have a look at the number of USA operations that have hitherto been allowed to exist in Europe to the disadvantage of our own pilots, Fedex UPS etc. They operate on ATP licences far far inferior to EASA and have a great deal of trouble in the radio communications department as any European crewmember can hear !! Give me strength.

I suggest we shove them all home to their land of oil and sugar [witness the girths of their women and engines] with a copy of the regulations, a guide to radio communication and our very best wishes in re entering their US job market.
Woof woof
Koi

[Thomascl605]

What huge imbalance, a couple of cargo companies :rolleyes: ? What solid evidence do you have that an ATP is inferior to a European licence ? You have none.

Also, if an EASA licence is a ticket to the insanity that you appear to be showing in your posting, then I'll pass thanks !

By the way this is being written by an EU Citizen flying an 'N' reg Jet on FAA licences, so your insults of American Pilots are wasted on me.

[koi]

Ahhh, touched a sore spot I see. FAA stands for Federal, not European.

The European training is vastly superior, ask any training school or TRE, the standard of american communication piss poor.


Let the debate begin.

K

[Denti]

Incorrect. The FAA hands out "based on" PPLs and IRs readily. The PPL is a 61.75 one and the IR is a foreign pilot exam.

Europe could do the same but they choose to run various restrictive practices instead.

True, but that is max a PPL with IR, in europe it is quite easy to get some very easy conversion of a US CPL into a JAA one, depending on country. And that is the main issue corrected here. True as well, they went slightly (but only slightly) overboard with the inclusion of the PPL into the regulation (though there seems to be a quite large time window to recertify), but as others i do see it as a tiny step on the way of evening the odds between the very much closed US job market and the very wide open european one.

I have to admit i do not really pity those companies that might have to move their aircraft and crews onto a european registry with that legislation, they flagged out in the first place to circumvent european regulation (and probably taxation).

[Thomascl605]

I'm sure that your American friends will like you for that comment. However, I fail to see your point as you are directing your comments at American Pilots, and many thousands of us flying on non EASA licences are not.
Yes, If I asked a JAA training school in Europe, they may say demeaning things about non EASA licences. Then again they are trying to relieve us of tens of thousands of pounds for the privilege of flying the same Aircraft, that we have flown safely for many years before. :ugh:

[B767PL]

If this was to be approved, when would said changes come into effect?

To convert from an FAA certificate to a JAR is a huge expensive pain in the ass as it is. Making it anymore so is not at all practical, and has ZERO logic behind it, which is a trait also demonstrated by advocates of this movement here in this thread. :ok:

Thomascl605 has it right.

[Thomascl605]

Then again Koi, there's a name for Pilots who flew 'down under' a few years ago like yourself. I guess you're not welcome there either. Let me guess, the Australian licence is now inferior too ??

[Thomascl605]

Thanks B767PL, have a look at the Bizjet forum for more info http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/429240-easa-n-reg-aopa-latest.html

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

The vote is next week, this has been dropped on the Aviation world at the very last minute.

[Squawk7777]

This is simply devine news.

I can scarse conceal my schadenfreude.

If this EASA vote confirms the adoption of EU Pilot certification rules, it will go a long way in redressing the huge imbalence existing between Europe and the US. Have a look at the number of USA operations that have hitherto been allowed to exist in Europe to the disadvantage of our own pilots, Fedex UPS etc. They operate on ATP licences far far inferior to EASA and have a great deal of trouble in the radio communications department as any European crewmember can hear !! Give me strength.

I suggest we shove them all home to their land of oil and sugar [witness the girths of their women and engines] with a copy of the regulations, a guide to radio communication and our very best wishes in re entering their US job market.
Woof woof
Koi

Sounds like you haven't gotten lucky for a while, mate! :ooh:

Who bl00dy cares if the R/T procedures are not as exact as in Euroland? Show me one example where non-procedural R/T has caused disaster in the US or Europe! I'd rather be worried about eroding hand-flying skills as I have seen in Europe than this @n@l retentive R/T crap! :ugh: Whereas the requirements of obtaining a FAA ATP is easier than the JAR/EASA one, I'd feel as comfortable in an N-registered plane as a EU one. It's less academical, but requires more practical skills.

The European training is vastly superior, ask any training school or TRE, the standard of american communication piss poor.


Complete ignorance. In what respect is the training superior? What defines American R/T procedures being "piss poor"? Care to examine your spelling issues? Ever flown into ORD? The first thing that comes to mind with EU training is the quick-ish disappearance of money from your account with rather little flight time and experience.

Got some inferiority complexes you want to share with us today? :rolleyes:

I have to admit i do not really pity those companies that might have to move their aircraft and crews onto a european registry with that legislation, they flagged out in the first place to circumvent european regulation (and probably taxation).

I guess you'd see a mass movement from N-registered planes to M-registered ones... ;)

[Bluestar51]

Koi,

Are you familiar with the term "Reciprocity"?

bs

[DA50driver]

I am a European holder of both the FAA and JAA ATP. The FAA test was a practical test, the JAA was purely theoretical.

I have had European copilots who told me they would not fly a visual approach. When I asked why the answer was "I have never done one". Yup, you are right. That is superior training.

I have heard a European crew so stressed out going in to Moscow on a windy day with only the NDB approach available telling the controller to "Shut up" when he told the in plain English that they were correcting the wrong way. After they went missed we landed (with two US pilots) before the European made another approach and went missed again. (It was well above minimums, just 30 knots of crosswind during the IMC portion of the flight).

So I guess I should yell at the controllers and be a ****ty instrument pilot to meet your high standards???

[742]

the standard of american communication piss poor.

Koi -

Minor point, but the "standard of communication" always favors the home team. Or to put it in terms that you might understand, the Europeans are the ones whose communication is "piss poor" at places like ORD, JFK and SFO.

Nothing personal, it is just the nature of life. You will realized this when you grow up.

[indaloamman]

I just read this link and don't understand the problem. I'm in the process of converting my PPL to fly in Germany (where I am a resident) and the current process is exactly that outlined in the press release--exams in human factors and air law, demonstrate that you can actually fly, medical, an additional R/T endorsement (easy). The LFA offers all exams in English, and I found the two theoretical components great additions to what I learned in the US.

I suspect that I'm missing something, but what's going to change? (All from the PPL side, mind you, not CPL/ATP).

Many of my German colleagues have done flight school in the US because it is a lot more fun, cheaper, and faster, and essentially just transfer their hours into the JAA system. It still works out to be a major cost and time advantage.

[...still single]

The problem is that N registered aircraft living in Europe will need to be registered in Europe (and therefore will need to be flown by JAA licensed pilots).

[KKoran]

The problem is that N registered aircraft living in Europe will need to be registered in Europe (and therefore will need to be flown by JAA licensed pilots).

And, for Boofheads information, the US doesn't have a problem with its residents flying foreign-registered aircraft using pilot licenses issued by the country the aircraft is registered in.

[Thomascl605]

The difference for an FAA CPL/ATP Indaloman is that EASA through their actions are trying to relieve us of tens of thousands of pounds, just to fly the same non EU registered aircraft that we have flown safely and legally for many years before.
Not to mention the time element and that for nearly all of us it would mean the loss of our jobs, as we couldn’t take the time off to pass their lengthy and pointless conversion process.

[Pace]

Koi

The European training is vastly superior, ask any training school or TRE, the standard of american communication piss poor.

EASA went to vast expense to find a safety arguement and could not find one! infact they all turned pink when the latest A/S showed FAA PART 135 to be safer than our own overregulated and controlled AOC ops.
Burocracy, quangos, pen pushers dont equal safety.
Even more pink turning was the discovery that FAA private jets also had a better safety record than AOC ops :E

This whole thing is ridiculous EASA should look at why FAA is so prevalent in Europe and make our system so attractive that so many would flock to EASA instead all they do is load our industry with more and more burocracy and expensive regulations to justify their own artificially created jobs.

[Pace]

And, for Boofheads information, the US doesn't have a problem with its residents flying foreign-registered aircraft using pilot licenses issued by the country the aircraft is registered in.

Koran

Who in their right minds would want to fly and base an EASA regulated aircraft out of Europe? That says it all!

Pace

[His dudeness]

The European training is vastly superior, ask any training school or TRE, the standard of american communication piss poor.


What kind of stuff have you been smokin?

[GlueBall]

". . .ATP licences far far inferior to EASA. . . "

. . . Gee, after 15,000+ hours of flying heavy airframes into Euroland with a non-JAA license. . . I must have been flying on "borrowed time" without possessing the magic of EASA expertise! :rolleyes:

[Pace]

GlueBall

If you did fly EASA Licences you would be so stressed out with all the extra paperwork and regs and burocratic nonsense you would have to deal with you would probably crash through that stress ?

Hmmm i wonder if thats why the AOC ops accident stats are so bad compared to the inferior FAA part 135 :eek:

Even our N Reg private jets are better in the accident stats but probably because we relax around the beach :)

From the CAA report summary - Corporate operations achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 per million hours flown, which is comparable to large western built airliner operations. Air Taxi had a far higher rate of 3.5.

On safety grounds which is EASAs Mandate maybe they should scrap the lot and copy the FAA system?

Pace

[Squawk7777]

I must have been flying on "borrowed time" without possessing the magic of EASA expertise! :rolleyes:

GlueBall, you got it all wrong! You will feel the magic after you see your bank account drying up. Trust me! :E

Then you hold a piece of paper in your hand, worth a few grand! Talk about magic! :{

[411A]

As I worked at quite a large middle east airline (SV) for a long time, one that required all their pilots to have FAA licenses, it was interesting to see just which foreign pilots failed their initial type ratings, the first time 'round.
Yup, you guessed it....Eurolanders, with original European licenses, without exception.
I had to laugh at all this, as these failures really got up the Eurolanders collective noses, big time.;)

[ehwatezedoing]

And on top of it, Glueball, you will know the amount of molecules inside your windshield!

Highly useful during a decompression :}

[HS125]

It costs me over £1,000 a year just to keep a JAA MEP/IR that I have by default under FAA. The reason I have never applied a type to my JAA is the ridiculous cost of regulation but if this lunacy comes to fruition then I'll be saddled with that - oh and I can't alternate types anymore. Not to mention the guys I've been able to start on turbines from non jobs Before the EASA union of bed-wetters get on their high horses, let us not forget there is no safety case!

The responses here seem to be broadly split between entirely reasonable opposition and unbelievably opinionated, and occasionally racist hearsay (KOI!) which is probably indicative of the mentality of the loons driving this.

I support the posters indicating the lack of a safety case, the fact that the FAA system is practical (not easier) and the EASA theoretical (to the point of lunacy). I would also point out that having observed their girth (as you suggest) the most beautiful woman I have ever observed with my 20/20 vision is an American.

Jeff

[KKoran]

Koran

Who in their right minds would want to fly and base an EASA regulated aircraft out of Europe? That says it all!

Pace

That's a separate issue...about which you have our sympathy.

[IO540]

I suspect that I'm missing something, but what's going to change? (All from the PPL side, mind you, not CPL/ATP).FAA PPL to JAA PPL has never been much of an issue. The UK has the 100hr route where you do 2 or 3 exams and a flight test.

The issue is with the IR, and for bigger hardware you have the CPL/IR and ATPs to convert. This much more work.

The problem is that N registered aircraft living in Europe will need to be registered in Europe (and therefore will need to be flown by JAA licensed pilots).Not under current proposals (http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewnpa/id_100). See table on page 9. SE and ME pistons, and SE turboprops will be able to stay on e.g. N-reg and be maintained to FAA Part 91 as at present. ME turboprops and jets will have some extra hassle, but foreign reg airframes as such are not being evicted as such. One thing is that to park in the EU long term the airframe will need to have an EASA type certificate; this does rule out a few types but not many.

[dc10fr8k9]

Koi,

I normally am not inclined to waste time refuting absurd arguments, because they usually do not even require refuting. But you need to be brought down from your high horse. You seem to think US pilots inferior in skill and in radiotelephony. Based on what? Your experience? Let's compare experience if you dare. This is an absolutely specious and absurd opinion. Piloting and communication skills vary with the individual, and are not endemic to any particular licensing authority or country.

True, in Europe you have to slog through 14,000 questions on 14 exams full of mostly trivial matters to pass the ATPL theory. But that does not a great pilot make. Personally I forgot 80% of that nonsense immediately after I passed the JAR-FCL ATPL exams, because I figured that after 29 years and about ten thousand hours of flying into over 80 countries on all continents before I sat those exams, if I didn't need to know about Decca navigation and figuring out the wavelengths of an NDB signal to fly safely as an FAA ATP, then I wouldn't need to know it flying safely as a JAR-ATPL.

As far as radiotelephony superiority is concerned, you are even more delusional. Go to LAX or JFK or ORD or ATL and marvel at how American pilots and controllers can shoe horn three times the amount of airplanes (and thus radio chatter) onto a given runway in any hour. And it works. In Europe, you have slots, so all the people on both sides of the microphone are not overwhelmed. In America, we don't need no stinkin' slots, we can talk as fast as cattle auctioneers if needed.

Bureaucratic fiefdoms in Europe make it even worse. ENAC, LBA, ACG, FOCA and the rest of the alphabet soup of organizations that have all invented aviation all over again and better than their neighbor of course, when one EU-FAA would do fine. And on your point of "Federal", that is not strictly an American word. How about Federal Republic of Germany for example.

And EASA? A bureaucrat's dream, but not much use to pilots. Try Googling any FAR and you will find what you need. Try even finding a current copy of EU-Ops online, and it isn't easy. It certainly isn't indexed either.

I know European pilots with superb communication skills, and some that I can barely understand in or out of the cockpit. And I speak 4 languages, so don't come back with any smart "you Americans only speak English anyway" nonsense. Likewise I know some American aviators with absolutely flawless diction on the microphone, and some who are just sloppy like anywhere else.

Usually, the person with the most xenophobic and self righteous opinion is the one who has no firsthand experience with the other side of the matter they are proposing to debate. What makes you so qualified to make the observations you make and to draw the conclusions you do?

Pilot training as well as the quality of aviation phraseology on both sides of the pond can be equally excellent, it all depends on the caliber of the pilot and the school. As a dual FAA and JAR ATP/L certificated/licensed (however you want the correct terms) pilot who has worked extensively on both sides of the pond in almost every facet of aviation, I feel qualified to shoot down your statement.

[Pace]

DC10

You said it and so well! As a pilot flying FAA jets this side of the pond EASA is a joke, a burocratic nonsense. EASA regard My FAA ATP as zero if I wanted to covert to their EASA licences I would be regarded as a basic PPL although I fly as a captain, have ferried all over the world and have 1000s of hours flight time.

That means nothing in EASA land. Now for no reason they are trying to ban N reg in Europe. If they had any sense they may just ask why so many N reg are in Europe? But they dont have any sense and dont address the real reasons.

E xterminate
A viation
S trangle
A viators

Pace

[boofhead]

I did not mean to hit a nerve or insult any pilot. I held 7 different ATP licences, including UK and US. I currently use only my US license. I was only pointing out that the US has always discriminated against foreign licence holders and has always required full training and testing before a US license can be issued, no matter what the individual might already hold. They recognise only the hours in your logbook or the type of experience such as instructor time, but even then you still need the ground and flight training and checking before you can be issued the rating.
For example I had the 737 with many thousands of hours in my UK licence but could not get that rating on my new US ATP. The ground school was given to me by Singapore so it did not count; I would have had to do it all again. I would have had to do the written type rating and the flight test as well. Many thousands of dollars. Obviously I no longer fly the 747.
By contrast I got my UK licence on the basis of a NZ ATPL, and all I had to do was the medical, law exam and a flight test in a multi (basically an instrument rating test) to get a full, no restrictions UKATPL.
Now it looks as if the European authorities are going to do the same thing to the US that the US does to them.
Hence my remark that is seemed funny that the US should complain. I realise that many of my colleagues are threatened by the changes, and hope they can manage to do what is necessaryto remain flying.

[fsfaludi]

boofhead,

I have a Canadian ATPL. I just got my FAA ATP Airmen's Certificate including the 3 type ratings I have for a/c I flew in Canada...by passing a Class 1 FAA medical and doing a 40 question multiple choice conversion exam (for which I studied for about 10 days). Period, end of story.

On the other hand, with my 7000+ hours (including over 3000 hours multi-turbine PIC time with a few hundred hours B737 F/O time thrown in)...to get the EASA or JAA ATP FCL or whatever the hell you call it, I need to do these ridiculous 14 exams.

This makes less than no sense; it's idiotic.

[411A]

I was only pointing out that the US has always discriminated against foreign licence holders and has always required full training and testing before a US license can be issued, no matter what the individual might already hold.
Wrong.
I will give an example.
When a foreign airline leases a US-registered airplane, for use in their scheduled services, the FAA (normally) issues, to the pilots that will fly these US-registered airplanes, a US license (no testing required), and these FAA licenses are restricted to only these specific airplanes, by registration number.
Been this way for well over twenty years.
Fact.

[atpcliff]

Hi!

Euro training is not better than US, just different.

There was a big discussion on this area in the ME forums.

Based on my observations of FAA/CAA, and, more so, from pilots much more experienced than myself in FAA/JAA/CAA observations, the training is different.

The JAA/CAA pilots are better at Met and subjects like Aerodynamics. The FAA pilots are better at handling the aircraft manually and flying visual approaches.

Also, heard the FAA pilots understand their aircraft better initially, as the PIC and SICs have to pass an oral exam (I understand the JAA/CAA pilots only have to pass a multiple choice writte exam on the aircraft???). The FAA Oral Exam is like this:
Weight and Balance charts, performance charts, checklists memory items (the first turboprop I had an Oral Exam on had 27 :-O!!! checklists with memory items), limitations, and systems questions, such as: How many/what kind of fire extinguishers are on the aircraft/where are they? When does that light come on? What does this switch do? What are the 9 modes that the outflow valves can be in? If you see a "Flap Drive" message, what does it mean, and what will you have to do?

Neither way is better, overall, just different.

Oh, and someone mentioned the 14,000 potential exam questions. The question bank I studied from was about 22-24,000 questions!!!

[Squawk7777]

Wrong.
I will give an example.
When a foreign airline leases a US-registered airplane, for use in their scheduled services, the FAA (normally) issues, to the pilots that will fly these US-registered airplanes, a US license (no testing required), and these FAA licenses are restricted to only these specific airplanes, by registration number.
Been this way for well over twenty years.
Fact.

Correct! Some of my friends at MXA who are awaiting their uncertain fate have FAA and JAA licenses (or better validations) for N- and F-OXXX registered planes. The only thing I don't know is whether the FAA calls it a license or a validation, but I'll leave that detail for to the bureaucratically gifted...

Usually leased airplanes will keep the registration of the lessor's country, so that it is easier to repo the plane in case the airline defaults on its payments. MXA's F100s were PH- registered for a long time, before they were finally purchased.

There is also an airline in the US (Ryan International I believe) that flies EI- registered (Ireland) 737s. Not sure if they still do, and if those were leased from the (in)famous Irish carrier Ryanair (FR).

[sunbird123]

I think this is about Power. FAA registered aircraft operating and based in Europe has probably upset some idiot in power. As they have no control over them and they do not conform to some of the more stupid Euro regs.
Also there is the question of licencing fees, all much more expensive in Euroland than the US.

[Pace]

Fresh from AOPA USA

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

[Pace]

SunBird

I totally agree with you BUT EASA does have the power but not in the way you may think?

In a free world we have freedom of choice. BMW build cars and sell those cars in competition to other car makers.

If you make something attractive in price quality etc customers will flock to buy them.

EASA with their power could have sat down and built a licencing product that was so attractive that no one would want to operate an N reg in Europe.
They have that power to do so but choose not too.

Instead they shout about UNFAIR N reg based in Europe. They could be clever and ask WHY ? and maybe for the good of aviation all round not just the N Reg issue start to do something really constructive to help aviation grow and flourish within Europe.

Instead they take out their big stick and beat aviation into submission bend it to their wish no matter how much they strangle the life out of it.

EASA is supposed to be a safety organisation and rightfully so. They know by all the statistics at hand to them that this is not a SAFETY issue so why do they not use their mandate and regulate on safety NOT politics.

EASA has the power why do they not use that power wisely?

Pace

[cockney steve]

As an "outsider", my input may not count for much, However, where empire-building "civil servants" (an oxymoron, if ever there was one!) , you can be sure that they will devise the most complex regulatory system they can devise.
The true reasons, - job-creation/security and ass-covering.
The commercial and practical desirability of international harmonisation is only valid in Euroland, where Brussels is head of the "old pals' club"

There is no logical reason ,to me, why any vehicle/vessel should not be freely transferrable to the register of the country where it is base.
AFAIK, the shipping world uses "flags of convenience" to circumvent the restrictions of more tightly-regulated countries.....the latter are at liberty to impose sanctions on those flag-carriers ,should they feel that there would be a safety-issue.(and insurers tend to apply an economic sanction there)

The airline world is different, they are not "one-offs" but series-produced with a demonstrated international operation and safety record. Therefore, an internationally travelled Pilot or Aircraft should be treated equally.

In the UK, American and some other import cars have to undergo certain modifications to lights and other minor items in order to meet Euro harmonisation.....BUT...as with the "N" reg. aircraft, short-term visitors can use British (and Euro?) roads/airspace, unmodified. It appears that common-sense goes out of the window ,when the pen-pushers are faced with something that doesn't fit in one of their carefully defined boxes.

Again, a foreign driver's license has a period of validity in euroland, before a conversion is required......but to restrict it's priveliges to a specific vehicle , is totally illogical lunacy.
If you're accepted to enter euroland, flying an "xyz", then logic dictates that you are competent to fly any other "XYZ " A conversion to a european license should not be needed....countries should recognise and accept free movement of pilots and aircraft between States (I accept that this , in turn , means a "club" of member-countries who agree to reciprocity) It is accepted that certain flag- carriers don't meet generally-recognised standards. Though insurers tend to make these less viable.

These beurocrats really need to be reined in.....a wiser man than I decreed the lunatics would take over the asylum.

[koi]

This is going better than anticipated. Facilitation at its highest level, nes pas.

Delighted that EU will vote.

Positively semi erect if Us pilots return to the land of oil and sugar.............


in fact , pass me the bus keys and I'll drive them to the nearest airport. Yes

we are all affected by non US licences operating within our airspace. However , we didnt start the fire ok !


Of the utmost importance thar the EU protects its high aviation standards

from potential dilution by the coarsly throated american pilots.

Question yous all : what is the number of american pilots, yes american

pilots allowed to reside and work in europe.


More More please .

Am doing a jfk next week and will have space in the lower aft for a half ton

of size 26 girdles for the local residents, oh and some guides to effective

communication. All donations gratefully received.

Koi

[The Ancient Geek]

EASA has the power why do they not use that power wisely?



Simple answer: Because the USA refused to talk when the EU offered a reciprocity deal. Engineering unions were scared that a few jobs might go overseas so the USA regulators played the protectionist card.

Longer answer: Since the formation of the EU there have been negotiations to harmonise a whole range of inconsistant and contradictory regulations into a single European standard in order to simplify trade and
qualifications, removing artificial regulatory barriers to trade.
When aviation rules came up for this process the regulators recognised that wider international issues were involved and offered the rest of the
world a chance to participate. Most of the world agreed to talk or at least to send observers but the USA refused to participate due to internal politics.

A few years later the EU finally agrees a common set of regulations for the aviation industry and the USA finally wakes up to realise that their interests have not been considered. What a surprise.

So now a pilot's licence issued in a third world country such as Botswana can easily be converted to an EASA licence but an American licence is simply not recognised.

Time for the USA aviation industry to kick some bottom in Washington and
say NO to silly protectionist policies.

[RVR800]

A Protectionist, provider-driven, none-democratic, old-fashioned, none-evidence based, centralised, beaurocratic, inefficient, expensive, time consuming, wasteful of resources, manipulative, frustrating charade

[ehwatezedoing]

koi forgot that he was willing to work outside of Europe with his JAA license ;)
http://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/358420-working-middle-east.html

[DA50driver]

Want to go for a long walk off a short pier with me when in NY next week? You make me ashamed to be a European............

[Airspeedintervention]

Koi,

Your attempts at being annoying are quite amusing. Your love for the colorful residents of NYC would actually be shared by much if not all the residents of the western united states. If our nations melting pot is your only basis for the flattering opinions you shower upon us then your xenophobia is quite misplaced. We understand though, it's quite normal for the downtrodden to want to put down their superiors.

Most Cordially,

Hugh G. Rection

[Oktas8]

Ignoring the wind-up merchant...

The Ancient Geek thinks (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the EASA rule makers have considered some interests outside of Europe, just not the FAA.

I'd like to assure him that getting a JAA CPL / IR / FI, already holding the NZ equivalents, was the most tedious and expensive process I've done, and very much harder than it would have been to get the FAA equivalents.

It's expected that every Authority wants a law exam and a flight test for each qualification - fair enough. But only the Europeans require all exams to be re-sat as well as mandatory training in addition to the flight tests.

Like other world trade agreements, ICAO is almost dead when it comes to pilot qualifications. It's all our loss.

[boofhead]

It was interesting to read the response from the Canadian chap who had a fast track to the US certificates. I had UK, NZ, Aus, SIN, and Taiwan ATP(L)s when I tried to get my US certificates, and I was told I had to do the full training, including ground school and test, medical, flight check etc just the same as any newbie. I was given credit for the hours I had flown, and was allowed to apply for the certificate based on my foreign licenses instead of having an authorization by a US CFI and proof of study. If I wanted my ratings, I had to do the full ground school and flight test on each type. Only ground school conducted at a US recognized facility would be allowed (this was at Boeing, for example, or at a foreign establishment if a FAA inspector attended to certify it).
When I turned up for my flight test the DPE refused my only current license (Taiwan) because Taiwan at the time was not a member of ICAO. He did accept my UK ATPL even though it was expired, because nothing in the regulations said it had to be current.
I could not afford the training for the ratings, so I had a bare ATP. I had to do it all again a year later when I wanted to add single engine!
Everywhere else I had gone, the countries followed ICAO. In that situation, all licences issued by an ICAO country are recognised by any other ICAO country. All that is required is a medical, a law exam and a flight check. When I got my UK licence they charged me 100 pounds per rating, so I only paid for what I needed (B737, B757). However there were no special checks required for these ratings.
In countries that did not have their own licencing, I flew on validations, which meant that I had to keep the original licence current in order to maintain my validation. This is not the same as issuing a full licence. The US does this if you want to fly a US-registered airplane without a US license.
I remember complaining to the US authorities that since they were members of ICAO they had to follow ICAO rules. This got me nowhere as you could imagine.
Add to this the complications of the security rules and TSA clearances. For an initial issue of any US certificate you have to now do a full TSA clearance that costs $130 non-refundable and a mine-field of procedures. It applies even if you do not try to get it done in the US. If you do want to go to the US to do it, you need a flight school to endorse the application, get a student visa, and complete it within 12 months.
At least I had the option of doing all my training and checking piece-meal during visits or layovers.
Hence the comment starting this thread that I found it funny to see the US offended for the behaviour of the EU, since that is what they have been doing all along.
Of course I might not be aware of changes to policy; the US might have now accepted the rules according to ICAO and are following them, which would justify their complaint about the EU policy. Has anyone done a US license lately? (not a Canadian apparently, since they have a special relationship. I wonder if a Mexican gets the same deal?).

[411A]

Add to this the complications of the security rules and TSA clearances. For an initial issue of any US certificate you have to now do a full TSA clearance that costs $130 non-refundable and a mine-field of procedures. It applies even if you do not try to get it done in the US. If you do want to go to the US to do it, you need a flight school to endorse the application, get a student visa, and complete it within 12 months.


Only for foriegn national applicants, USA citizens have no such problems.

Tough sh*t sherlock.

NB.
It's all been changed, anyway, boofhead....and we don't especially care about your personal problems.
Don't like it...leave and don't come back.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

Can I just ask a quick question. Are medical requirements the same?

[411A]

Are medical requirements the same?No, they are not.
EASA requires a much more detailed and expensive process (no surprise there, certainly:rolleyes:) with about...the same failure rate as the FAA equalivent....3%
How do I know?
The AME I attend for my FAA medical, also issues EASA, DOT Canada, and several others.
My FAA First Class medical (with EKG) costs $120.
EASA?
$450 for initial, $350 for renewals.

EASA...a profit center, make no mistake.
The pilots, on the other hand...screwed, big time.

[Huck]

At last, 411A uses his powers for the good.....

[captjns]

Anybody know the definition of a Microsoft Pilot???? Anyone??? Anyone??? KOI... that's what a microsoft pilot is. I do have to ask... wher does he come up with this stuff:ugh:? Anyone??? Anyone???

Anyway... background checks??? Let me tell you about background checks... 4 months to get the approval for an airport entry pass with a BAA airport. Oh... if the date format is incorrectly entered on any reference form??? bounced back. Did I mention if the reference letter is signed in a different color ink used on the form??? yep... bounced back.

I was happy that I did not have to pay the some $250 plus fee for the background check nor the $116 for the pass itself.

[dc10fr8k9]

Yes, indeed Koi is an immature self imagined elitist who probably is masking some deep seated personal insecurities and personal disappointments with his childish commentaries. Part of the problem is that there are too many elitists like Koi populating the halls of power in European aviation, and also in the leadership of American Trade Union halls. Both use the misguided premise that they are better and try to hinder the free flow of goods and skills with their discriminatory practices. In any case, I have expended enough commentary on such an immature gnat.

As far as the famous EU bureaucracy, it is indeed something that stifles innovation, industry and productivity as much as American protectionism does. Sadly, on both sides of the Atlantic, there are people who want to ruin whole industries because of the narrow goal of personal gain regardless of the cost to the infrastructure as a whole. These people, whether they be EU bureaucrats or US Trade Union protectionists are no better than rogue traders who try to bankrupt whole nations in order to profit from the spoils. And as someone already pointed out, someone will indeed profit from the spoils.

But there is a bureaucracy even worse: Russia. While EU overregulation merely stifles and handicaps aviation in Europe, Russian bureaucracy is completely killing their aviation industry and Europe ought to have a hard look at what over regulation and absurd policies are doing to that country's aviation infrastructure. Two weeks to clear a part out of customs for an AOG airplane? No wonder the aircraft repair industry is non existent there. And the aircraft registry looks equally as bleak. There has to be a reason and it is bureaucracy. Europe ought to take a long hard look at that poor role model and reconsider it's misguided effort at trying to emulate it. Look at the ramp at Moscow Vnukovo, and notice that all the shiny Gulfstreams and Legacys and Global Expresses are not Russian registered, they are European, VP or US registered for the most part. And when it comes to EU registry, it is self evident that the owners and operators also look to EU countries that if not outright facilitate aviation, at least do not do their best to hinder it. That's why half of those planes in Vnukovo are registered in Austria for example. Because Austro-Control is fairly progressive as far as aviation is concerned. France for example only has about 17 AOC holders, while Austria has over a hundred. Why? Odd that a small country has such a booming aviation industry while a great country like France does not. It's probably because the numbers are reversed. Austria probably has only about 17 SAFA inspectors running around on ramps hassling pilots, while France has probably hundreds. Some countries (Like France and Russia) simply prefer to employ bureaucrats with clip boards than productive workers, while some other countries prefer to obfuscate the process with antiquated labor protection laws. Both are merely job protection schemes and both are equally as absurd.

Regardless, when it comes to international operations, be it oil tankers or airplanes, or accountants, the standards ought to be the same worldwide, and in fact largely are (in spite of delusions held by people like Koi). Sadly as always, safety takes a back seat to politics and the rest of us cogs in the machine end up suffering.

[boofhead]

411A, what do you mean? Of course it only applies to foreigners, isnt that the point? And what do you mean, get out if I don't like it?
I am a US citizen now but I have alien students and would like to keep up to date, so please inform me what has changed in the TSA requirements. It might be important...

[411A]

I am a US citizen now but I have alien students and would like to keep up to date, so please inform me what has changed in the TSA requirements. It might be important...
Ok, here is a possible example.
Let's say you desire to send new pilots to Delta, for simulator training.
It could even be on the L1011...:E
Anyway, Delta does the entire process, from obtaining TSA clearance to visas...everything.
Occasionally, there will be a snag with visas, but this is quite rare.
All you have to do (as the originating company) is....pay the bills.
A streamlined process, in effect....now.
I expect Flight Safety has a similar process for their corporate clients.

Also, where I park my private airplane in Arizona, CAE has at least fifty training aircraft, and they do nothing else but train foreign pilots, day in and day out.
Do they have problems with TSA or visas?
The answer seems to be...NO.
Chinese, Indians, a few Jordanians, Europeans...they have 'em all.

[odemacon]

Devine news really? :=

Allow me to remind everyone of the result of the first protectionism measure implemented by France in 1983 when the civil authorities put a ban on US licenses validation based, for the first time in civil aviation, on the place of residence of the pilot.

The result? Well you did not want the US system, the US system came to you! 93000 US licences with European adress. This is the number from the FAA 3 days ago. So Bravo.

In my humble opinion, Europe is making an enormous mistake. This does not simple concerns the "few" private pilot flying IFR in their "N"ovember. If Europe does not drastically review it's training programs from PPL to ATP, mark my words:

IN 25 years time, when the sky is fully open to competition and that an Indian airline can offer London to Nice and Paris to Roma with the aircraft going to rest to Malta will you still applaud then? And guess where the pilots will have taken their training? and where will the aircraft they fly will have been built?

I'm thinking of my children and grand children and Europe should realize that the time of the overpowering colonies has ended. The only way, in my views is harmonization.

Fly safe, be happy.

Olivier

[boofhead]

411A OK, but I am not at your lofty level any longer. I work in flight training and general aviation now. It is definitely a problem there.
And having a legion of facilitators to manage the bureaucracy does not take away the fact that it exists.

The problem is reciprocity. ICAO is meant to make this possible and in most parts of the world it works well. Not so in the US.

If every contracting state followed the ICAO rules we would not be having this discussion.

[IO540]

Boofhead

It is true that the USA has made many exceptions to ICAO (some without filing a difference, too) but the real bottom line is that the USA is very welcoming of foreign pilots:

- The FAA accepts foreign training towards all US qualifications. No European country (AFAIK) does this - except in the narrow context of the 100hr ICAO PPL to JAA PPL conversion route, and 1 or 2 other bits

- The FAA accepts training in any aircraft reg. Europe bans any foreign-reg training or checkrides, except the UK which allows it with DfT permission (not viable for ab initio PPL anyway, but OK for say the JAA IR)

- For noncommercial stuff, the FAA hands out piggyback (61.75) PPLs to anybody with an ICAO PPL, and hands out an IR to anybody who can pass the foreign pilot exam. No other country in the world makes it so easy.

- You can do a checkride for any US license/rating anywhere in the world - if you can get a DPE to come out to you (and if his conditions are not too onerous; another subject ;) ). No other country allows this.

Most US deviations from ICAO are in the "easy" direction e.g. penetration of Class D requires only a 2-way radio contact; no clearance is required.

I have trained in both the UK and USA.

The TSA+Visa is indeed a hassle but not a major one in the wider picture - if you get a decent checklist from somebody who has done it before. There are lots of gotchas e.g. TSA allows you perfectly easily to register a Part 61 school, but only a Part 141 school can be in SEVIS and can issue the I-20 which you need to get the Visa ;) I reckon it is 2 days' work in total.

If every contracting state followed the ICAO rules we would not be having this discussion.Yeah but think of all those poor useless good for nothing people in the various CAAs and FTOs who would lose their jobs ;) This is all about job protection. But the place where I see the least amount of job protection (at least the crude overt totally shameless in your face kind which is seen all over Europe) is ........ the USA.

This EASA proposal is going to create absolute havoc, especially among the older and highly experienced CPL/IRs who fly private and corporate jets and turboprops, who will be looking at 14 exams, packed with total crap which is irrelevant to real flying.

[boofhead]

I guess I was lucky. I went from AUS to NZ to Singapore, to UK, to Taiwan, to Korea, with side trips as well, and in every case all I had to do was show my last licence, do a law exam (2 hours tops), a medical and a flight check (as little as half an hour). Each new licence was complete, no restrictions, and stood alone (I was not required to keep the original licence current). It had all the ratings included.
I could, however, do my Aus, NZ and UK medicals in Singapore and those countries accepted my check rides, even though they were all done on a Singapore simulator with a Singapore check pilot (same in the other countries). No requirement to use an Aus/British registered airplane.
To get my US ATP I had to do the full groundschool and sit the exam, the medical, a full training flight to learn the ropes and a full ATP check ride to get the ATP. I could not get my ratings unless I was prepared to do a full US rating course on each one, no short cuts. I had to do two ATP checkrides, because the first one I did was multi engine and that did not qualify me to even rent a Cessna 172.
Under ICAO I should be able to present my ICAO licence and be issued a US equivalent (not just a temporary licence for some private flying while visiting, which is all you will get). The new US licence should include all ratings current and present on the original ICAO licence; type ratings, instrument ratings etc.
The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.
If they were not in violation they could have a better case when they complain about other countries doing what they do themselves.
Aren't we bored with this subject by now?

[411A]

The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.

Makes no difference, the USA is large enough that they can get away with being the odd man out.
Now, as far as the latest EASA proposed regulations go, I would have absolutely no objection to these, because...it is quite likely that some businesses might well decide that they so desire their corporate airplane, and wish to fly same unhindered by expensive new regulations, they just might pack up and move to America, keep their N-registered airplane(s) and prosper under a much more reasonable tax and investment climate.
They would be welcome....come one, come all, and don't forget, bring your airplanes.
Thank you.

[The Ancient Geek]

Makes no difference, the USA is large enough that they can get away with being the odd man out.


Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The EU is now larger than the USA. Nice big market with plenty of people and all the resources to safely ignore the bully on the other side of the herring pond.

The Pacific Ring is also doing rather nicely, within a decade or two the USA will have to be satisfied with being the biggest fish in a small pond.

[411A]

USA will have to be satisfied ....
....with having the largest numbers of private/corporate aircraft than all other countries, combined, operating in the lowest cost environment.

We simply don't care what the Eurolanders do....or not do, in aviation.
And, oh by the way, we are about to increase fees for all the foreign flights, both commercial and private, that travel in US controlled airspace, by 14%, per year, over the next four years....so that they can pay, their fair share.
The (mostly) free ride is over for Eurolanders, and others.
If I choose to fly my corporate airplane (of any weight (mass, for the Euroland folks:rolleyes:) anywhere in the USA, I do not pay one penny of enroute charges, and we intend to keep it that way.
Eurolanders allowed EASA to be established, now they will just have to live with the consequences.
We, in the USA, couldn't care less.;)

[boofhead]

Hey, 411A, watch your airspeed! Don't pull back so far or else you will... Too late! Pull up! Woop woop!

[IO540]

Under ICAO I should be able to present my ICAO licence and be issued a US equivalent (not just a temporary licence for some private flying while visiting, which is all you will get). The new US licence should include all ratings current and present on the original ICAO licence; type ratings, instrument ratings etc.
The US does not do this and is in violation of the ICAO charter.

Almost nobody else does it either, especially once you get beyond a PPL. If everybody did this, the flight training business and NAA employment would be more than decimated, in most places.

The USA, and also any country willing to "sell" certificates (which is quite a few if you look at the trade in bogus degrees) would be the chief beneficiaries...

[411A]

Almost nobody else does it either...

...except all the countries in Euroland, when approached by those pilots who don't have a Euroland license.:}:ugh:
Euroland is right and truly stuck with EASA, now they can lump it.:p

[Oktas8]

The FAA allows [lots of stuff] ... No other country in the world makes it so easy.

Actually some other Authorities do. It's great that the FAA, as the largest single market, accepts ICAO licenses with minimal fuss. But so do some other countries including this one. I think Europe really is alone in the developed world by trying to support the training industry by forcing retraining of qualified overseas pilots.

Now if I had my way... All ICAO licenses accepted without restriction, except those issued by the JAA. Full retraining required... :ok:

[edited because other posts have been made in the mean time]

O8

[boofhead]

I gave you chapter and verse, but you still think the US accepts ICAO licences. Have you gone through that process? I would like to know if you did and how it worked for you, since I was totally unable to manage it.

I am not talking about Private or Commercial.

If the ICAO countries did not accept each other's licence, it would be tough to move around. It takes on average 2 years to get an ATPL in most countries, including study, ground school and testing, flight prep and flight test. By recognizing the other licence, all that is needed is a law exam, medical and flight check. Some countries will not allow the conversion unless you have a reason for it, and some countries will cancel the licence after you leave (contract ended), but generally it is a smooth process. Not so the US, which in my experience will not allow any conversion of an ICAO licence (maybe they do for Canada).

However, it is easy to get the US licence, if you are not held up by the TSA. It takes around 4 days to do the entire thing, from study, written examination, flight prep and flight test. Plus a couple of thousand bucks of course. I have heard of people getting it in 3 days. Maybe that is the easiest option. Ratings are not included, and they will take more effort.

[Reverserbucket]

411A
..has at least fifty training aircraft, and they do nothing else but train foreign pilots, day in and day out.
Do they have problems with TSA or visas?
The answer seems to be...NO.
Chinese, Indians, a few Jordanians, Europeans...they have 'em all

And with the implementation of EASA you might find a few of those foreign trainees leaving the U.S. due to the requirement for the instructors training them to have an EASA licence - this would impact the significant number of U.S. flight instructors who currently hold an authorization to teach outside of JAA member states and impact the local economy.

The AME I attend for my FAA medical, also issues EASA, DOT Canada, and several others.
EASA...a profit center, make no mistake.

And seeing how your AME also serves those same students perhaps you'll find the cost of your First Class renewal increasing? :}

[ironbutt57]

Koi.."far inferior" based on what?? First lets get the froggie speaking the correct language on the radio to enhance safety, then address the nickle and dime issues...

[411A]

...due to the requirement for the instructors training them to have an EASA licence

Some already have said EASA license.
And no, this particular training is not likely to move to Euroland because...the weather is much better here and the costs are very much lower.
Also, many of the students are Chinese and Indians.

[Uncle Wiggily]

Koi: I have both the FAA and JAR ATPL. I have flown commercially and instructed on both sides of the ocean for many years (14 years). I disagree with your statement...and yes I have done ALL 14 of the ridiculous JAA ATPL exams.

I believe the you should only comment on this issue if you have completed both FAA and JAR ATPLs....which I seriously doubt you have. IMHO, the European JAR exams are definately more challenging, but flying skill test standards and overall flying ability is definately on the side of the FAA pilot.

[countbat]

Maybe this shouldn't be about who and which is better, but about another way of making an extra buck by greedy governments. I understand is very much of a hassle to register and own an aircraft in EU, and majority of aircraft owners rather use N registration for taxes and insurance purposes. Forcing aircraft owners to local registration and insurance will bring a huge chunk of much needed income with total disregard to the people hassle.
Same for pilot license holders. It's all about money and ridiculous government absolute control.

[3pointlanding]

Me thinks you are incorrect sir. All it akes for a U.S. License is for you to ake a written on our air regs and a checkride. I've given many to foreign crew. check out FAR part 61

[GarageYears]

Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
The EU is now larger than the USA.

But still a shambles of bureaucratic idiocy based on the shattered dreams of some (long) fallen empire... EASA is digging hole after hole for itself and everyone that sails along with it. Good luck to any and all who believe this is the "right move" for Europe. As a UK citizen now living in the US (12+ years and counting), all I can say is I know which side of the pond I prefer my bread buttered on...

- GY

[boofhead]

3point, why would you make such a statement? FAR61.75 allows for the issue of a Private license on the basis of a foreign licence, but it is valid only if the foreign licence is maintained. It is a validation only.
If a foreign pilot wants to fly a US registered airplane under certain limited conditions she can be issued a validation for that too, but in neither case is there an issue of a full US license.
If you have seen something in FAR61 that does allow it, please give me the full reference so I can read it too.

I say again, ICAO allows for recognition of licences, and all countries in ICAO should be forced to follow that rule, or be expelled. That would solve all these problems.

[boofhead]

I admit the chip with the TSA. I can't see how any person familiar with aviation could have any other view. It is a complete disaster with no benefits at all, a total waste of time, effort and resources designed to make the ignorant think that something is being done about a practically nonexistent danger. Don't get me started!

Please go through and see some of my posts about rules and regulations in other countries, Australia in particular (where I started many years ago) and you will see I am a strong proponent of US regulations. I believe that the reason we (I am a US citizen by choice) have the safest aviation in the world is because we have good common sense regs. Obfuscation and complexity do not make things better, it hurts safety big time and EU rules, UK rules and especially Aus rules are terrible.

However the US has got one thing wrong, and that is the resistance to accept ICAO. I see no good reason for this stubbornness, and feel it is the old NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here). Should I close my eyes and just accept everything that the US does as perfect? Sorry, I have been around the block too many times.

Accepting ICAO without significant changes would make aviation world wide go much easier and safer. This is true for every ICAO member, not just the US.

Do I have a problem or do you?

[BEagle]

And no, this particular training is not likely to move to Euroland because...the weather is much better here and the costs are very much lower.

Indeed, 411A. Even the imbeciles of EASA can't make the sun shine!

Once upon a time, there was a Piper J3 Cub, a Piper Cherokee and a Supermarine Spitfire.

For many, many years, you could fly all of them on a UK PPL anywhere in the world. Every 13 months your logbook would be stamped if you'd done 5 hrs P1 and you'd be good for another 13 months.

Then the UK CAA decided it would be A Good Thing to change the rules before JAR-FCL came in, so that it wouldn't come as a complete shock. You could still fly your Cub, Cherokee and Spitfire on a PPL, but the logbook stamp became a 2-yearly licence page signature instead. And was called 'revalidation' or, if you’d run out of currency (which was now called ‘recency’), ‘renewal’.

When JAR-FCL arrived, if you wanted to you could change your lifetime UK PPL into a JAR-FCL PPL which needed to be re-issued every 5 years for which, of course, you would have to pay. The CAA said that this would make things cheaper for everyone in their Regulatory Impact Assessment. Few people were stupid enough to bother. But you couldn't obtain a lifetime UK PPL any longer....

Training for the JAR-FCL PPL was too expensive for many - and some pilots couldn't meet the medical requirements, so a new, simpler licence and medical was invented - the NPPL. Originally with 'simple SEP' privileges, later changed to SSEA because the CAA weren't man enough to stand their ground when challenged. You could, however, still fly your Cub and Cherokee, but not a Spitfire. But only in UK airspace.

Then the €urocrats sniffed real gold and invented EASA. This wholly unnecessary €uro-quango now intends to force everyone with a lifetime UK PPL to replace it with an EASA part-FCL PPL - which isn't lifetime - if they want to fly 'EASA aircraft' such as Cherokees, but not Cubs or Spitfires. Also a JAR-FCL PPL will need to become an EASA PPL. Unless, that is, you simply want to fly your Cub and Spitfire, because you will still be able to do that with a national licence such as a UK PPL or, for the Cub only, an NPPL. If you want to fly a Cherokee as well, you would need to change your NPPL into a LAPL (assuming the medical requirements are still achievable) - or your UK PPL / JAR-FCL PPL into an EASA part-FCL PPL.

So, as I understand it, when the lunacy of Brave New €uroland finally arrives:

• You’ll be able to fly a Cub, but not a Cherokee, on a NPPL in UK airspace.
• You might be able to fly a Cub on a LAPL outside UK airspace; you could fly a Cherokee, but not a Spitfire.
• You can fly a Cub or a Spitfire on a UK PPL, but not a Cherokee. Certainly in UK airspace and perhaps elsewhere?
• You might be able to fly a Cub or Spitfire on an EASA PPL but probably only in UK airspace, but you would be able to fly a Cherokee inside or outside UK airspace.
• The NPPL and LAPL have different revalidation / renewal requirements and the LAPL might also have reissue requirements. None of which are the same as for the UK PPL or EASA PPL.
• The UK PPL doesn't need to be reissued whereas the EASA PPL does.
• My brain hurts.

How to fly a Spitfire outside UK airspace? Probably the same way as in 1940.....

[koi]

The subject is Easa Rule making and the effect / reaction on the americas. My privilege to have the bus keys ready to drive the wonderfully well deported and articulated americanos to the nearest rail station / port to ship them out of our europe and release jobs to those who have legal right of abode. They protect their back-yard oh... so well, now ....for payback. Makes my trousers go tight just thinking about it.


K

[Thomascl605]

How weird "Koi" that would would be getting sexually aroused by fellow Pilots losing their jobs. I say this because this is the second time you have mentioned it. Joking or not (and I don't think you are) it's a very disturbing trait that you have.
Your complete lack of respect and loathing for FAA rated Pilots (US nationals or otherwise) is a cause I think for further investigation by people who can determine your real identity from these forums (easily done I'm sure)

Your attitude sickens me :yuk:

[koi]

SoCap App

What rubbish you talk man.

No it does not work the same.

The Americans do not /will not allow a UK or European airline to set up an

internal operation employing european citizens domiciled, I say again

domiciled in the USA. Europe however does in the form of two cargo airlines

taking hundreds, yes hundreds of jobs away from european pilots.

FEDEX and UPS: ...''go figure'' as I believe you types are want to say.

Trust you are enjoying the wonderful hospitality of the americas where families in their thousands are handing back the house keys and living under canvass in the californian desert. Grim viewing dont you think> Enjoy.

Now where did I put those keys fella.

Koi

[Teddy Robinson]

happy days: recollections from my transition from instructor to airline pilot, domiciled at the time in the UK, where I was born ... turbine time would have been very useful, yet for some peculiar reason, most of the equipment I wanted to fly was sat gleaming in the hanger of my local airport with an N registration painted on the tail.

Those with cash to spare went to the States and did their FAA licence, came home and flew, meanwhile, having "squandered" my resources on a UK CPL/IR and type rating, it took some time to find a UK operator, operating the same aircraft, and then to gain employment

Having seen both ends of the aviation roller coaster, I would not wish anybody out of a job, that said, with no reciprocal agreement in place, this one sided arrangement has existed for too long.

[mykul10]

makes fun reading, but a serious point here.

This thread does underline very well EASA's determination to make everything as difficult as possible which is not suprising given that they are dominated by pressure from legal and political people.

Regardless of the EU vs USA debate, we are all sleep-walking towards serious grief in April 2012. I have recently heard UK CAA and EASA say "oops we didn't mean/realise that" when questioned on some points recently and have heard warnings from people far more qualified that if some of the current proposals become law as planned the some of us will be permanently bu:mad:ered.

Its a wider issue than just FAA vs EASA, but the original idea behind this thread would no longer be an issue if common sense was allowed to make a comeback.

Although the FAA/EASA does not directly concern me (I don't hold any FAA licences, or should that be licenses??), the bigger situation does concern me.

There are plenty of people who say what they don't like about EASA, but very few who say what they are going to do about it. I have tried writing to UK government and other politicians but felt like I was pi:mad:ing on a house fire.

Short of all large scale revolt against EASA, we will shortly be faced with a lot more hassle at best and perfectly decent organisations not being able to operate legally at worst.

If anybody agrees it would be great to hear from you, because my present intention is to give up my UK(non JAA) licence plus my experience and apply it to something outside aviation.

[411A]

There are plenty of people who say what they don't like about EASA, but very few who say what they are going to do about it.
I suspect the reason is....there IS nothing they can do about it.
It would appear that in Euroland, the powers that be right and truly will tell you what you can/cannot do, and you (in Euroland, collectively) can....lump it.
So, bring your corporate/private airplanes to America (where we already have more than all other countries) and enjoy our pilot-friendly FAA rules.
As for boofhead, America will not change just to satisfy some looney ICAO edict...get used to it.:rolleyes:

[mykul10]

411A - you may unfortunately be right about not being able to change things. It is certainly very late. The only way it will get changed is via the EU Commission, which means getting enough euro MPs to get hold of the commission by the short and curlies. The only way to achieve this would be to get hold of the MEPs in a similar manner.

[Squawk7777]

So, bring your corporate/private airplanes to America (where we already have more than all other countries) and enjoy our pilot-friendly FAA rules.

I doubt that this is going to happen on a large scale. The new tax haven right now in Euroland seems to be the Isle of Man which has its own registration (M-XXXX).Maybe low(er) tax can justify the additional need to train your crew for JAA licenses?

IMHO, the best certification one can have are dual licenses (FAA and JAA). It's sad to see this thread having turning into a p!ssing match thanks to ignorant comments made by Koi.

[Thomascl605]

"Koi" you obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about. British Airways used to (and probably still do) allow UK Citizens to live permanently in another Country outside of the EU (domiciled) being based and flying from there on 'G' reg aircraft. There are many more examples of this with other Carriers too.

In fact Fedex and UPS haven't "set up and Airline" here as you call it. Rather, they have bases here in Europe that they staff with FAA reg Pilots. Big deal, if we're going to say no to that, then every other Airline with outstations in Europe like say Air New Zealand, Cathay etc etc will have their Aircraft banned from Europe too.

BTW, Fedex and UPS don't ban non US Citizens from flying for them. As they state on their recruitment websites you have to have lived in the US for 5 years. Fair enough really.

As for your ramblings about the state of the US housing market and homeowners handing back their keys, it doesn't really deserve a reply. However, if you think that the UK's market is so rosy then have a look here.

Credit Crunch Forces Homeowners to Hand Back Keys (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=234102)

:ugh:

[mykul10]

"And was called 'revalidation' or, if you’d run out of currency (which was now called ‘recency’), ‘renewal’."

Sorry, but you have got the definition of "currency" wrong. Under the new rules we may all run out of "currency," £ s d that is, because we will have given it all to pay for this nonsense.

If I borrow a book from the library, because I'm a goody-goody I go back and renew it before time is up, so why did "they" decide that a perfectly simple word should mean something different in aviation.

[Squawk7777]

Thomascl605, well put, but I'd just ignore Koi's rants. Not worth a reply at all, he's just setting new standards in ignorance. :yuk:

[HS125]

Guys some of the posts completely miss the original point here.

Currently, you can fly an EASA reg on an EASA (only) licence in the US as a US resident, and you can fly a US reg on a US (only) licence in EASA land as an EASA land resident. EASA are trying to change the latter part of that which I feel nobody in their right mind could reasonably support. there is no one sided arrangement on the particular issue being challenged by the proposed legislation

Koi's stance seems to be a fundamental objection to US citizens working in EASA land, but need to realise urgently that to challenge that the way is through immigration policy not Flight Crew Licensing policy that will penilise countless EASA land citizens to the extent that they will probably loose their livlihoods. Personally and having found some of the remarks overtly racist I'd say that better still would be to just go away, but thats just my two cents.

I also found Teddy Robinson's comments a bit hard to take. I did a JAA licence first and then an FAA, most of my work is now derived from the FAA. I don't see how I could hold it against the guys who went the direct FAA route, effectively saving themselves time and money just because their research was better than mine!

The important point of note is that this is now merely shelved until December and it is therefore vital as an industry to keep up the pressure on the authorities to drop these ludicrous proposals.

[Jet Jockey A4]

New Euro Flight Crew Licensing Rules Put on Hold...

The European Commission (EC) has postponed until mid-December a vote on EASA draft rules regarding flight crew licensing. As proposed, the rules have no provisions for the conduct of pilot initial, re-validation and renewal of class and type ratings from outside European Union member states, according the European Business Aviation Association (EBAA). The new EASA rules are proposed to go into effect in April 20102. In an October 6 letter to the EC, EBAA, NBAA and the International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) warned that the proposed rules would reverse long-standing reciprocal acceptance policy for pilot credentials between the U.S. and the EU and adversely impact safety. The organizations also said the draft rule would have “a highly negative impact on the safety of business aviation operations” as “many European operators rely on simulator training conducted in Canada or in the U.S.” Because most business aircraft are manufactured and operated in North America “to expect the relocation of such activity to Europe to comply with the rules is completely unrealistic.” Representatives of European member states and the EC discussed the proposal at an October 14 meeting at which the EC insisted that a vote on it be delayed until year’s end to allow more time for revisions.

[fdr]

Having experienced the joys of both the FAA and EASA/JAA programs, I have some mixed views. There is nothing trivial about FAA standards, and the training organisations offer quality training and additionally check to a high but fair standard.

EASA/JAA could have been a benefit to Europe, however, the nonsense of license validation from one member state to another confounds rationality.

Both FAA and EASA are supposed to be aligned to ICAO requirements under the annexes, but apparently that is insufficient to have a harmonised program.