JAA license requirement

[leonard17F]

Hi All,

I heard through the grapevine that if you were flying an aircraft registered outside of Europe (i.e. N-, M-, VP-, ) BUT based in Europe, the crew will have to have a JAA licenserelatively soon:

- Is it true ?
- Does this apply to all types of acfts ?
- Does this apply to all types of operation (private, charter...) ?
- How long is the grace period ?
- What does it mean exactly to be based in Europe ? (i.e. if the acft spends more than 183 days/year outside of Europe, does this apply ?)

Please redirect me to another thread if this is redundant !

[proudprivate]

Hi Leonard,

Your thread start is kinda redundant. You can have a search under "EASA threat to N-registered aircraft" in this forum, where you will find interesting exchanges between forumites wishing each other unwell.

Alternatively, have a look at the European Parliament Basic Regulation 2008/216 and the recently submitted to Parliament draft FCL proposal voted by the EASA Committee in December 2010. Especially the annexes relate to the topic you mention and they are of course highly controversial.

The Transport Committee of the EP is currently reviewing the matter. If you don't like what you see, you might consider contacting some of the French MEP's offices in the Transport Committee (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/search.do?committee=2868&partNumber=2&language=EN)of the European Parliament. If the latter doesn't veto the proposal within 3 months of them receiving the translation of the FCL proposal, the whole thing becomes European Legislation, thus putting an excessive onus on non-EASA registered aircraft of which the operator is EU-based.

Dominique Riquet is one member that has voiced particular concerns, but he is only a substitute member.

I hope this helps.

[GlueBall]

It doesn't matter whether you are an EU national living in EU, or a foreigner "residing" in EU, or a foreigner "based" in EU. You would NOT need a JAR/EUOPS licence to operate a foreign (non EU) air carrier registered airplane; just as you would NOT need an Australian license to operate your EU registered airliner into SYD, even if you were an Australian citizen, or a foreigner residing or "based" in Australia.

You only need a license that is valid for the respective country in which the airliner is registered. Your residency, or temporary "basing" issue is only an immigration/work-permit matter. Private/personal aircraft operations may differ.

[proudprivate]

You only need a license that is valid for the respective country in which the airliner is registered.


That would be normal practice in any civilized country (like Australia). However, what EASA is trying to push now is that, if the OPERATOR of the aircraft is based in the EU, the PILOT needs to comply with EU-FCL, whilst in the implementation of this regulation not forseeing anything reasonable for the foreign license holding pilots.

That is why the regulation and its draft implementation proposal currently under debate is so controversial.

Article 4.1.c claims :


Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance,
which are:

(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for
which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or
used into, within or out of the Community by an operator
established or residing in the Community;

shall comply with this Regulation.



Residency (of the pilot) indeed only has to do with immigration and work permit issues. Reference is made to the residency of the operator.

Although one of the recent draft implementations by the UK CAA erroneously mentioned residency of the pilot as a relevant issue.

[GlueBall]

The thread topic was about foreign crew members being based or living in EU, not about a foreign operator (air carrier) having its principal operations (HQ) base in EU.

So, SQ/QF/CX/MU... etc. . . crew members living/residing/based in EU, operating their respective (foreign registered) jets into and out of EU airspace would NOT need JAR/EASA/EUOPS licenses.

Such licensing absurdity would suggest that all the world's non EU licensed pilots would need to acquire JAR/EASA licenses in order to fly in EU airspace.

And due retaliation would require all EU pilots to acquire FAA licences to fly in USA airspace....etc, etc. :rolleyes:

[ella_dani]

@ leonard17F
See this http://http://www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20%28LW%29.pdf (http://http//www.easa.eu.int/ws_prod/r/doc/opinions/Translations/2010/04/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20on%20personnel%20licensing %20%28LW%29.pdf). Annex III, it's at the end.

@ GlueBall
foreign crew members being based or living in EU, not about a foreign operatorANNEX III CONDITIONS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF LICENCES ISSUED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THIRD COUNTRIES of Darft Part-FCL says: "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".

Also if third country licences are validated, it would be for one year and another year extension. During this time the pilot should convert the license. You cannot fly with validation and many extensions, as it is now. For PPL the conversion requirements are alleviated. There are some exceptions, but not useful for commercial/private flying.
It's my interpretation of the Part, so if I'm wrong, correct me.

Ella

[leonard17F]

Just to clarify my question, the crew would be EU nationals (GB, D, etc...) NOT US or anything else...
The A/C would physically be based in the EU. Its registration would be N- or M-.
When you say, "the operator is based in the EU", what exactly do you mean (physically or legally- is there a difference)?

I.e., would there be a difference if the company would be officially registered in the EU and under EU law, or if it was an "extension" of a company based elsewhere ?

Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs.

[proudprivate]

Mon cher ami,

The proposal currently under discussion by the Transport Committee of the EP can be found here (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/tran/dv/tran20110525_pilotlicences_/tran20110525_pilotlicences_en.pdf)


When you say, "the operator is based in the EU", what exactly do you mean (physically or legally- is there a difference)?


The concept of "operator" is particularly fuzzy and ill-defined, both in the current proposal and in the basic regulation. It might be that EASA (and by extension the EASA Committee) has done that on purpose, in order to avoid legal accountability on the one hand, whilst creating the biggest possible legal uncertainty to those potentially affected.

The factual "definition" can be found in the basic regulation (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2008R0216:20091214:EN:PDF)



‘operator’ shall mean any legal or natural person, operating or
proposing to operate one or more aircraft or one or more aerodromes;


This definition is of course circular and open to interpretation. A lot of aircraft documentation, especially in a commercial environment, contains the word operator and designates it, but its is by no means trivial to ascertain who the "operator" is all instances (leasing company, pilot, airline, trust beneficiary, owner, shareholder in the special purpose holding company that has the aircraft as an asset on its books, pledge holder,...). Getting a legal opinion about your M- or N- registered jet and its "operator" might help.

It is of course nothing short of licensing absurdity, with potentially catastrophic consequences*, which is why it should be stopped.

*decreased availability of air transportation
*decreased general aviation traffic
*decreased aircraft value
*decreased air safety in the private pilot community
*(as mentioned by GlueBall) potential for spiralling protectionist retalliation
*job losses for commercial pilots who don't fulfill dual license requirements
etc...etc...etc...


If you're convinced by now (even if your personal issue is solved), you might want to call her (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=FR&id=4347) or him (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=FR&id=1164) or her (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=FR&id=28208) or him (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=FR&id=96948), depending on your political preferences, telling them that whilst saving the "Brevet de Base" might be nice for the "Amis de l'Aeroclub de Haezebrouck", but doesn't help you keep your job or lets you fly your plane because you don't have time to sit 14 exams and a flight skill test.

A guy who is very much aware of the situation (and who has asked already some pertinent questions to the Commission) is Dominique Riquet (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/committees/view.do?language=FR&id=96885) (UMP).

[GlueBall]

It must be a living nightmare for all the EU aviation administrators to know that hundreds of foreign registered big jets are operated daily into all corners of EU airspace, crewed by foreign licensed pilots who have not mastered the JAR/EASA 14 question test, nor the JAR/EASA certified skill tests. :rolleyes:

[GlueBall]

Look out guys. I'm coming into Heathrow with 350+ Pax next week. I don't have a JAR/EASA/EUops license, I haven't mastered the 14 JAR tests, I haven't received a JAR approved LPC. I may not meet EU ops standards. Wow. :ooh: