From CAA re Bilateral agreement with FAA

[Pace]

What do you make of this especially 2.2 regarding Pilot Licencing?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/EU-US%20Bilateral%20Safety%20Agreement.pdf

Pace

[mad_jock]

It reads to me that they are gettiing things sorted out with maintence and parts but as yet there is nothing in the pipeline for licensing.

I would suspect the licensing side of things is quite low priority. Especially as they are between a rock and a hard thing. What ever they do its going to kick off. If they don't get the US to reciprocate (and why should they?) they can't just say ok its a one way agreement.

[A and C]

I think that the pilot licensing is going to take some time to have any effect but the real place that the benefits will be felt is in aircraft maintenance. The EASA145 & FAR145 harmonization could be with us within a year resulting in it being much easier to maintain an American registered aircraft in Europe.

[Pace]

Initially the agreement recognises the competence of each of the parties in the design,
certification and maintenance of aircraft within their individual legislative structures. It allows
for extension into other areas such as pilot licensing, on the basis of new annexes which will
be developed as soon as possible

It does not say "maybe" but "will be" and follows on From EASAs preferred stance.
Mad Jock maybe a light at the end of the tunnel? I know you wont like that from previous posts :E
Just a reminder that EASAs own plans were delayed from 2012 to 2014 for the specific purpose of a Bilateral Pilot licencing agreement.
Maybe if still not in place a further extension to 2016?

Pace

[mad_jock]

I honestly don't mind if there are agreements which closes the loophole in a satisfactory manner.

It has zero affect on me or my career.

[ScottinTexas]

I had to look up 14 CFR 145 because it is not in my FAR/AIM book. Since that section is concerned with repair stations that is the only thing that appears to be under attack at the moment, not licensing...yet. But one sentence in 2.2 bothered me so much I had to comment on it. It said "In addition, the bilateral has provision for the EU Competent Authority, usually the National Aviation Authority (NAA) to conduct oversight of FAA approved repair stations (14 CFR 145) using the EASA Part 145 approvals as the baseline." Did I read that wrong? Do they actually have plans to turn over United States based repair facilities oversight to the EU and fore go the the FAA's control over US Based repair facilities? One can assume, given the direction America is going today, that the US government is willing to turn everything over to the EU. Or Yugo Chavez. So I am reading that with a heavy dose of cynicism.

As far as licensing goes, the outcome will be based on difficulty of achievement. That is, the governing authority that makes it most difficult for an individual to acquire a PPL or an ATP and anything in between, will win the day. Governments are loath to allow freedom and one way to control freedom is to license everything in sight. I am not saying that anyone with a whim should be allowed to jump in any plane and fly around. I am saying that as more people do it, regulations will become stricter in order to discourage it. Whatever the it may be. Oh yeah, and tax it too.

Just in general this bothers me on a wider scale. The agreements, while they sound good to begin with, are gradually eroding our individual country's sovereignty. If, as they are doing, we have these wonderful bi-lateral agreements, we are allowing another country to interfere in the governing of our individual countries. In this case the EU is the "interfering" country. It saddens me that the UK joined the EU. I feel like she gave up. I know it's not my country, but Americans have a certain affinity for the UK. Soon Parliament will be sitting in session asking the EU what to do next. The EU, meanwhile, will be under the control of the United Nations and the ultimate ruler of the civilized world will be the Secretary General. Will this never end?

[A and C]

We are in the business of major damage repair to composite airframes, this is the sort of job that can't be done by an individual due to the complexity of the repair and the equipment required to do the job.

With the Cirrus range of aircraft becoming very popular in Europe and a lot of them staying on the American register it is advantageous to have the EASA 145 / FAR 145 crossover when it comes to major repair work as I doubt that Cirrus or any other manufacturer would offer technical cooperation to individuals who are unlikely to have the facilities to properly carry out such work.

I have no doubt that for the normal day to day maintenance you are correct but that is not were I see the advantages in all of this.

[A and C]

I too would be far happier to chuck all the EASA stuff in the bin (along with the parasites from Cologne) and work under the FAA FAR system but we know that the ego of the EEC won't let that happen any time soon.

[patowalker]

I think the best solution for Europe would be to adopt the FAA FARs lock and stock and barrel.

Only enlightened countries, like Ecuador, do that sort of thing:

RDAC PARTE 23
ESTÁNDARES DE AERONAVEGABILIDAD: AVIONES CATEGORÍA NORMAL, UTILITARIA y ACROBÁTICO.
ADOPCIÓN:
Para los Estándares de la RDAC Parte 23 del Reglamento de Aeronavegabilidad de la República del Ecuador, de acuerdo con la RDAC especial, publicada en el RO 186 del 4 de noviembre de 1997, la Dirección General de Aviación Civil (DGAC) adoptará la FAR PART 23; AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, AND ACROBATIC CATEGORY AIRPLANES (Última Edición) de la Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, en idioma inglés, íntegramente, con todas sus enmiendas, modificaciones y apéndices.

[ScottinTexas]

OK. After reading the responses I have abetter understanding of "repair stations."
I was taking that to mean every mechanic doing a major overhaul of your basic Lycoming engine. Or replacing the brake pads, etc. I can see where a frame repair station, as A and C described, in Europe having similar rules and regulations regarding the repair facility as the FAA would in America. But that does not mean that the NAA should have oversight of those stations. Like Silvair said, I would just as soon not have any treaty that abdicates any control over repairs, licensing, etc. to any other country.

[Bus429]

But one sentence in 2.2 bothered me so much I had to comment on it. It said "In addition, the bilateral has provision for the EU Competent Authority, usually the National Aviation Authority (NAA) to conduct oversight of FAA approved repair stations (14 CFR 145) using the EASA Part 145 approvals as the baseline." Did I read that wrong? Do they actually have plans to turn over United States based repair facilities oversight to the EU and fore go the the FAA's control over US Based repair facilities?

FAA been do this for EASA approved FAR 145 AMOs since the inception of MIP-G (now superseded by MAG) for years. FAA does the inspections and recommends or otherwise to EASA.

[IO540]

That bilateral is almost irrelevant to GA.

Part 145 repair stations are not required for private GA. Maybe for light jets? I doubt it, for Part 91. An A&P / IA is all you need and there are loads of freelance ones.

A 145 (FAA or EASA) company is needed for working on AOC aircraft, but there are very few of those on the N-reg in Europe.

The bilateral is irrelevant to the current EASA pilot-shafting proposal whereby everybody flying a foreign reg will need to obtain duplicate (Euro) papers, even if the said papers are insufficient to fly the particular aircraft in Europe.

[Pace]

The bilateral is irrelevant to the current EASA pilot-shafting proposal whereby everybody flying a foreign reg will need to obtain duplicate (Euro) papers, even if the said papers are insufficient to fly the particular aircraft in Europe.

10540

EASAs own stance is that their much preferred option is to achieve a bi lateral agreement on pilot licencing hence their extension to 2014 to give time to achieve that.
As bi lateral agreement is in place allowing scope for FCL.
My guess is it wont be sorted by 2014 and hence will get another extension to 2016 but it has to happen for other reasons.


Pace

[IO540]

EASAs own stance is that their much preferred option is to achieve a bi lateral agreement on pilot licencing hence their extension to 2014 to give time to achieve that.
As bi lateral agreement is in place allowing scope for FCL.
My guess is it wont be sorted by 2014 and hence will get another extension to 2016 but it has to happen for other reasons.

I have no inside knowledge with which to disagree :) but I cannot believe EASA will just throw away decades of job creation, not to mention countless millions of euros spent on mega lucrative rulemaking jobs creating all the FCL garbage we now see coming our way, by signing a BASA with the USA.

Look at a "small" detail. EASA is not even interested in accepting AML STCs. Why? OBVIOUSLY because they would create job losses at EASA and Part 21 companies in Europe (who pay fees to EASA). There is no safety case.

So the whole "anything is possible with a BASA" stance pushed by Seebohm and others absolutely does not square up with a) their obvious business creation incentive and b) their actual present and historical stance.

For that reason I am sure that the constant reference by EASA to a BASA solving all these hot potatoes is nothing more than a diversion tactic, to make everybody think that a solution is just around the corner, so they can push their proposed rules through without too much resistance.

It also makes EASA look all warm and fluffy because "bilateralism" is such a lovely equitable concept which nobody will ever criticise, and 99% of Euro MPs haven't got a clue what they are voting on but they can understand these "high level European ideas". It is such ideas which partly drive people to work in the EU federal government system (the other being the expense-loaded lifestyle, of course).

I agree that nobody is actually going to shut down the N-reg (and related foreign reg) community, and that last-minute fudges will keep coming along, because this potato is much too big to eat in one go.

Evidently I am not the only one thinking this because ICAO IR to JAA IR conversion business in European FTOs is running at a miniscule level.

Nevertheless I have decided to have a go at it myself, just in case there is some sort of regulatory ambiguity which would compromise one's insurance. Also the 15hr IR conversion route currently looks like it will disappear in April 2012.

[Pace]

10540

I think we have far greater problems looming in Europe than EASA like the inevitable collapse of the Euro which is not sustainable.
How this will effect European aviation regulations who knows?

Pace

[IO540]

European disintegration will not affect anything in EASA.

If you were paid 100k-200k/year to do some job, and you have a family+lifestyle to feed, you will just carry on as before.

What the present large-scale political situation would impact is the ability to expend significant political capital on doing something about a "disobedient" country.

If e.g. the Czech Rep stuck a finger up to the EU and converted FAA IRs into JAA IRs, for 5000 euros, the EU would not do anything about it. But the Czechs won't do that (all the small countries brown-nose the EU at every opportunity) and the bigger countries (France, UK) will probably just issue postponements. Germany will play ball; German people normally do as they are told and if they were told to sit 100 exams they would just do it.

So I don't see anything changing.

[Pace]

10540

The Euro was never going to work without a central European government with tax raising abilities ie a united states of Europe.
Obviously we in the UK never entered the Euro and are in a better position for that.
So really its a choice of all the European countries following the UK and going back to being able to control their own currencies with a common market or a United States of Europe.
Regarding EASA the French are already offering the own FAA style IR. It only takes a couple of other countries to copy it and EASA will adopt that new rating with direct exchanges of FAA IRs plus a small exam to European French PPL IR.
With other things I know about in the jet world I think its very unlikely that the shape of things we fear will ever come into play in 2014.
That is if any of us can afford to fly by then?

Pace