€urocrap

[fattony]

the Regulation will become law on 1 April 2012

Oh, I get it now. All this EASA nonsense is just an elaborate April fool. You guys nearly had me!

[rasti121]

Quote:
the Regulation will become law on 1 April 2012

Oh, I get it now. All this EASA nonsense is just an elaborate April fool. You guys nearly had me!
It's actual 8th of April 2012, with possibility to postpone appication until 8th April 2015 and some other exceptions with different deadlines (Article 12).

[IO540]

For close followers of The Crooked Agency, nothing terribly unexpected in there.

It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.

This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.

This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.

[IO540]

For close followers of The Crooked Agency, nothing terribly unexpected in there.

It's worth noting that the IR still requires the audiogram in each ear separately on the initial medical, despite me having been told by Eric Sivel (EASA's then head of rulemaking) that the initial v. renewal dictinction will be ended by EASA.

This ridiculously gold plated and arbitrary piece of initial medical crap stops quite a lot of older people doing the European IR.

This is the normal pattern of EASA behaviour: tell different things to different people.

[BEagle]

The Manual of €urocrap, otherwise known as the 'Aircrew Regulation' has now been published at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:311:FULL:EN:PDF

[BackPacker]

Wow. That's quite a piece of work.

I've taken a quick look through it and one thing that strikes me as good is that they seem to have left out the triple negatives that seem to be required in the ANO. And I also noticed some questionable details, but I'm not going to list them here.

Instead, one question: Can somebody who is more intimately familiar with the inner workings of the EU/EASA, put this document in the legislative context? In other words "Is This It?" Is this going to be the law as applicable in the EU effective April 2012? Or is this still some intermediate/draft/proposal document, or an explanation of another document, or something else that should be put into context before starting to read it?

[172driver]

In other words "Is This It?"

I don't profess to understand all the EURocrap, but see page 7, Article 12.

PS: one little detail just really shows what kind of system we have to deal with in the EUssR: there is no index..... :yuk:

[BillieBob]

Yes, this is IT. Having now been published in the Official Journal, the Regulation will become law on 8 April 2012 and the Annexes (Part-FCL, conversion of national licences, validation of third country licences and Part-MED) will be adopted in the UK from 1 July 2012. The associated AMCs and Guidance Material have yet to be published and will, presumably, appear on the EASA website in due course. However, since these are not legally binding, they are arguably of less importance. There is also the small matter of Parts-ORA and -ARA, which are due to be published 'early next year', meaning that the picture is not yet quite complete.

Despite the time that this process has taken, there are still a number of errors and inconsistencies in the Annexes that will have to be addressed before implementation. However, this can be done by issuing an exemption under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation, which will not materially affect the Aircrew Regulation as published.

[BackPacker]

Mods, any chance this thread can become a sticky for the next six months or so? (And fattonys post time corrected to restore any semblance of sequence to the posts?) I've got the feeling we're going to refer to this thread in the next few months quite regularly as the implementation date draws near.

(And at the same time, the thread about "traveling to the US under the VWP" may go away, AFAIC. If you and/or your travel agent/airline haven't heard about ESTA by now, then that thread is certainly not going to help anymore...:uhoh:)

[BillieBob]

Any organisation that seeks to provide flight training in EASA aircraft (aeroplanes, helicopters, sailplanes or balloons) will need to be approved by the 'competent authority'. The criteria for approval will be published in EASA Part-ORA 'early in 2012' although the content will, I understand, not differ significantly from that in Opinion 03/2011 available here (http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/opinions/2011/03/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20AOR.pdf).

[DB6]

We REALLY need to be out of the EU.

[MIKECR]

Just had a quick read of it. I may have missed it, but what constitutes an 'ATO' - Approved Training Organisation?

[Whopity]

Annex III Section 1 Here (http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measures/docs/opinions/2011/03/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20AOR.pdf)

[chubbychopper]

For the sake of a simpleton like me, could someone outline how this will effect an operation such as ours, and I suspect many private corporate operators

We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).

The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.

One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.

What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?

[BillieBob]

Is there any indication of what extra costs an ATO will have to pay out in order to do IT training?There is no difference in the approval fees charged for an ATO as opposed to an FTO. For the modular IR, the proposed initial approval fee for 2012/2013 is £1294 per module (BIFM & PIFM) with an extra £647 if the course is to include synthetic flight training. The current fee for initial approval of the 'old' modular IR course is £1269 (+£634 for the addition of synthetic flight training) so splitting the course into 2 modules appears to result in the initial approval fee more than doubling. This does not, of course, include the fee for qualifying the FSTD (£7431 for initial qualification of an FNPT II).

Proposed annual re-approval fees are £1156 per module and £1676 for renewal of the FNPT II qualification.

[IO540]

can anyone explain to me if it is possible to fly with a than NEW EASA PPL in the whole of EASA land a N/reg airplane?

It is up to the State of Registry (the USA in this case) to decide whether a particular pilot license is acceptable to them.

The FAA has repeatedly ruled that FAR 61.3 is to be interpreted strictly on the word "issued". There are two Chief Counsel rulings on this.

That means that the present situation:

currently I can only fly with a JAR-FCL PPL an N reg airplane in that country the licence is issued.

will not change.

[David Roberts]

Not they won't if the club is part of a national (BGA) ATO.

(This refers to post 27 - mine appears out of sequence! Mods.....)

[IO540]

I see prune is back to its buggy behaviour whereby postings have the wrong dates assigned to them, so they are displayed out of order.

Is there any indication of what extra costs an ATO will have to pay out in order to do IT training?

I am interested in seeing whether the FTO to ATO change will result in any better (geographical) availability of facilities for training private pilots for the IR. Currently, probably the majority of UK PPLs are looking at hotel residence to do an IR.

[IO540]

For the sake of a simpleton like me, could someone outline how this will effect an operation such as ours, and I suspect many private corporate operators

We operate an M reg (not EASA) jet which is operated for private flights and owned by a company incorporated in the Isle of Man (which is not in the EU).

The a/c is based inside the EU and flown by four pilots, two with JAR licences, and two with FAA licences validated by Isle of Man.

One of the FAA licenced pilots is a resident outside the EU, and one lives in it.

What, if anything, effects us as a third country operator?Nobody knows at this stage. It depends on the interpretation of the EASA regs, which basically say that if the operator is based in the EU then the pilots need EASA papers.

As with most things in aviation, there are two aspects to this: (1) policing and enforcement, and (2) insurance implications.

I find it incredible that there will be general policing. There is no "certificate of EU residence/nonresidence" that a pilot can carry, and there are so many grey areas (such as yours) where the pilot could easily carry paper evidence of a non EU base. I am not a lawyer but I really cannot see how this will be policed - except very sporadically where some country's police or CAA wants to p1ss off N-reg owners (which does happen, here and there). The policing framework simply doesn't exist.

Insurance is going to be the key. And it is insurance which drives compliance with most aviation regs, because the policy normally has a general requirement to be "legal". So you ought to ask your insurer what they think of it. IMHO, and I am not a lawyer (just a businessman of 33 years), if you make a full disclosure to them and they are OK with your operator EU nonresidence status or whatever, then they can hardly walk away from a payout.

It has been argued that the operator is whoever has the decision power on where the plane flies, and it doesn't take a PhD to realise that he could be outside the EU. The people who would get caught up by this EASA business :yuk: are the small people like me who are owner pilots and obviously live in the EU. But if you move about, perhaps have non EU tax residence, you are back to the grey areas.

The residence of the pilots is unimportant, unless some of them could be seen as "operators".

It's a stupid regulation - a typically brain dead "finger up to the USA" political decree from the EU. I have some notes here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/), with links to the regs. Whether you will be any wiser, I doubt.

I am pretty sure that a straight aircraft owner living on the IOM will not be affected by this stuff, because the IOM is not in the EC (for this purpose). And same if he lends/rents the plane to somebody else, living anywhere at all. He must just remain the operator i.e. retain direct control of what the plane does. Again, it doesn't take a PhD that if he sets up a booking website...... get my drift? It's all booollox when you look at it in any detail.

The plus side of this EASA reg is that there is now no long term parking control on foreign reg planes in the EU. This does away with the sporadic attempts to p1ss off N-reg owners living in Denmark and, I gather, 1 or 2 other places in Europe. Long term parking limits are inherently unnforceable so policing will always be sporadic. France abandoned such a proposal in 2004, the UK did same in 2005, Iceland abandoned it very recently too.

(Interesting that prune does correct datestamps for some people's posts but not for others).

[IO540]

There is no difference in the approval fees charged for an ATO as opposed to an FTO. For the modular IR, the proposed initial approval fee for 2012/2013 is £1294 per module (BIFM & PIFM) with an extra £647 if the course is to include synthetic flight training. The current fee for initial approval of the 'old' modular IR course is £1269 (+£634 for the addition of synthetic flight training) so splitting the course into 2 modules appears to result in the initial approval fee more than doubling. This does not, of course, include the fee for qualifying the FSTD (£7431 for initial qualification of an FNPT II).

Proposed annual re-approval fees are £1156 per module and £1676 for renewal of the FNPT II qualification.

Doesn't that mean, in effect, that no ATO is going to bother to do IR training unless they do it already?

I did wonder about the sim approval costs. They are big, but hard to avoid since most customers are not aircraft owners and sim time is thus cheaper than flying.

One could argue that private owner-pilots may generate new revenue and I would guess most of the SE owners would choose not to use a sim (as I have done) but I don't see this as a vast new market. Especially with the 2014 derogation on FAA to EASA IR conversions, which may be extended again as necessary.

[MIKECR]

I wonder how gliding clubs will get round the new towing rating as it states the rating must be conducted through an ATO(by FI or CRI). Will gliding clubs be ATO's in their own right?? If not, how many FTO's out there(who will become 'ATO's') will be able to conduct the training......at the moment i cant think of any!

Presumably the 100's of existing tug pilots out there will have to obtain the new rating or will they get some kind of grandfather rights based on previous experience?

[spainflyer1]

can anyone explain to me if it is possible to fly with a than NEW EASA PPL in the whole of EASA land a N/reg airplane?
currently I can only fly with a JAR-FCL PPL an N reg airplane in that country the licence is issued.

Is my interpretation correct or do I have some wrong thinking??

[IO540]

My reply is higher up the thread.

Clearly faster than light travel is a reality :)

[Pace]

It should be possible for Member States to accept licences issued by
third countries where a level of safety equivalent to that specified
by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 can be guaranteed; Conditions for the
acceptance of licences issued by third countries should be laid down

This looks promising? Where is the talk of dual licences required gone.
Third country is not just FAA so i wonder if this is an opening for a Bi Lateral subject to that third country being recognised as acceptable by EASA.

Pace

[B4aeros]

I wonder how gliding clubs will get round the new towing rating as it states the rating must be conducted through an ATO(by FI or CRI). Will gliding clubs be ATO's in their own right?? If not, how many FTO's out there(who will become 'ATO's') will be able to conduct the training......at the moment i cant think of any!

Presumably the 100's of existing tug pilots out there will have to obtain the new rating or will they get some kind of grandfather rights based on previous experience? I'm pretty sure gliding clubs will become ATOs in their own right, or possibly the BGA will become an ATO & each club will be a local branch of the BGA. Someone is going to have to train, examine & issue all the future LAPL(S) & PPL(S) licences.

[BillieBob]

Will gliding clubs be ATO's in their own right??Gliding clubs will have to become ATOs if they wish to give instruction for the sailplane licence.

[chubbychopper]

The plus side of this EASA reg is that there is now no long term parking control on foreign reg planes in the EU

IO540, could you expand on this please. I assume that this means there is nothing to stop an N (or other third country) registered aircraft from staying and operating continually in Europe. Am I correct?

Do you have a reference source please?

[proudprivate]

Yes, this is IT. Having now been published in the Official Journal, the Regulation will become law on 8 April 2012 and the Annexes (Part-FCL, conversion of national licences, validation of third country licences and Part-MED) will be adopted in the UK from 1 July 2012.


Notwithstanding this, all decisions taken by the Commission under the Basic Regulation are, as usual, subject to review by the Court of Justice of
the European Communities in accordance with the Treaty.



[...]However, this can be done by issuing an exemption under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation, which will not materially affect the Aircrew Regulation as published.

Are you referring to the accelerated regulatory procedure with scrutiny ? That sounds like yet another anonymous and bribed EASA Committee throwing some more sh1t at the European GA Community. Better put the MEP's on pre-alert, then. After all, with EASA being unable to distinguish safety from politics as well as communicating different things to different people, anything can happen.

[IO540]

I assume that this means there is nothing to stop an N (or other third country) registered aircraft from staying and operating continually in Europe. Am I correct?Yes.

Do you have a reference source please?Everything not prohibited is 100% legal.

There is no reference.

You can read the link(s) I posted - the applicable EASA regs are perhaps 2000 pages, and AFAIK there is no mention of any long term parking ban.

For better or worse, EU law is EU law.

That said, nothing stops isolated cases of localised harrassment, like I mentioned earlier. They happen today and it cannot be guaranteed that they will cease altogether. Countries like France, Italy, etc, can do what they like (again, for better or for worse).

After all, with EASA being unable to distinguish safety from politics as well as communicating different things to different people, anything can happen.

That's true as well :)

[IO540]

The irony, Silvaire1, is that Europe's aviation regulation is driven largely by a dislike of America among Europe's self proclaimed intellectuals.

Otherwise, they could just mirror the FAA regs, which self evidently work OK, and have an easy life.

In one meeting a few years ago, I put this to one CAA official ("copy the FAA regs and have an easy life") and he agreed but said it's not politically possible.

[Pace]

IO540

EASA are just a reflection of what is wrong in Europe and why Europe is on the Brink of self destruction.

Any sensible person would take a tried and tested system like the USA has and tinker with it a bit to suit Europe and save a fortune.

I flew for a guy who wanted a million metal parts creating, he got a quote in Europe of approx £1.75 per unit and had a quote for exactly the same spec unit of 27 p in China! Where would you buy from?

Governments have created artificial jobs in Europe. To justify the jobs that government created they regulate, interfere, create further artificial jobs to research their potential regulations! They have quangos, committees, sub committees, etc etc etc. All a drain on wealth creation and all a massive cost.

Someone has to pay for all this rubbish and sadly we have come to the end of the road with the imminent disintegration of the financial system in Europe.

Yes there is a much bigger inclination towards a big brother state in Europe but I dont feel that this is much to do with a dislike of anything USA but more of the results of artificial work creation which has lead us to no longer being competative worldwide and one giant headache in doing anything aviation or otherwise because of the mass of burocracy and regulation that is the result of all this needless interferance.
These big fat monsters government created still need to be fed but we dont have the money to pay for them.

I was no lover of Mrs T but her direction was to limit governemnt interferance now we have gone the other way with disaterous results.

Here endeth the lesson now I will shut up:ugh:

Pace

[NearlyStol]

Wonderful lesson ; look forwards to next Sundays sermon should you comment
on the coming weeks Lemmings' outing . !

[Whopity]

they could just mirror the FAA regs,Well that's how it all started, JARs were based on FARs but look what happened when a bunch of committees got at it.

If like much of Europe, we simply put it in the cupboard and shut the door, it would not be a big issue but, being Brits we have to take each stupid rule interpret it in our own way, and then try to enforce it even if it makes no sense.

[Jim59]

Is this it?

Not entirely. This is this is the regulation, however, it excludes the AMCs (Acceptable Methods of Compliance) that will be published by EASA soon and will probably be somewhat longer. EASA is also able to make 'Decisions' that are legally binding as well to supplement the regulation.

The AMCs will add detail to the legal framework in then regulation. The rulemakers 'try' to simplify the regulation and put the details that are likely to change into MACs and Decisions because they are easier to change.

[David Roberts]

Sequencing of posts still out of kilter. My reply to post 26 is at 17....

Not they won't if the club is part of a national (BGA) ATO.

[Whopity]

Not they won't if the club is part of a national (BGA) ATO.So applying the rules of equality, AOPA could be the ATO for all PPL training conducted in the UK!

[B4aeros]

Thank you David, that's good news.

So applying the rules of equality, AOPA could be the ATO for all PPL training conducted in the UK! I suppose it would be possible if the instructors & schools were AOPA members. If you look at the ATO requirements (3 page extract (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/925530/Draft%20Commission%20Regulation%20AOR-1.pdf)) they are not particularly onerous, it's a question of whether AOPA could set itself up as an ATO that instructors & schools would want to join.

The BGA has been doing all the ATO requirements for years anyway; the system is already in place. The CAA don't really want to regulate gliding so everyone just carries on as before.

[fireflybob]

I know at least one Panel (Instructor) Examiner who was ex CFS, very experienced, well respected who has given up examining because he could not stomach any more of this bureaucratic nonsense.

As an experienced pilot in several different theatres of operation who is approaching retirement from the airlines, I was considering seeing my days out doing some instruction at the local flying club I have been a member of for nearly 50 years but when I look at all the irrelevant bureaucracy and fees associated with the change to EASA (hell WHY should a small flying club have to write a comprehensive training manual) I am seriously considering hanging up the headset - I suspect there are many like myself who are feeling the same way.

As I have stated before we need nothing short of a major revolution to stop this nonsense - the first step would be for UK plc to pull out of the EU completely and just go back to having our own national licences and wave two fingers to the Eurocrats in Brussels.

[Whopity]

The CAA don't really want to regulate gliding so everyone just carries on as before.The CAA will be obliged to apply the same level of regulation across the board whether it wants to or not!

If AOPA is worth its salt, it appears from what David Roberts has said, and he should know as one of the Architects of this nonsense, it could relieve the burden on many small operators who will simply give up. AOPA would then control all PPL flying schools which is exactly what they wanted when they proposed the JAA PPL back in the early 90s.

[hum]

Dear Sirs,

The European Aviation Safety Agency’s mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation.

One of our core values is to continuously strive to satisfy our stakeholders' expectations without compromising safety, by inspiring confidence, in particular to the general public, and ensuring that we act in an effective and efficient way.

Within this context, we have decided to conduct stakeholder satisfaction surveys on a regular basis. Your feedback will help us to improve our processes in order to provide the best possible service.

Mr. Jules Kneepkens, Rulemaking Director, would therefore like to encourage you to provide us with feedback and comments on the Rulemaking process by filling in our online questionnaire. We would very much appreciate if you could submit it within the next two weeks.

Link to the questionnaire: Stakeholder Feedback Questionnaire 2011 - Rulemaking Directorate (http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=Rule2011&lang=en)

Yours faithfully,

Allison Kerr
Quality Officer, Internal Audit & Quality Department (E.3.1)
Executive Directorate

:}

[IO540]

The European Aviation Safety Agency’s mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety

That is self evident booooloxxx and even EASA has long given up pretending it is the case.

If it was true, they would not be shafting thousands of foreign licensed pilots with a blatently political decree.

[172driver]

Good grief - and here I was thinking hum's post was a spoof. Until I clicked the link.

In the EUssR fact IS stranger than fiction.....

[Whopity]

The European Aviation Safety Agency’s mission is to promote the highest common standards of safety and environmental protection in civil aviation.

Alison, I suggest you read your own website. Its obvious that EASA has no idea what its Mission is.
http://www.gra-cv.com/brev/images/easa_cert.jpg

The Agency’s mission is twofold
It shall provide technical expertise to the European Commission by assisting in the drafting of rules for aviation safety in various areas and providing technical input to the conclusion of the relevant international agreements.

In addition:

the Agency has been given the power to carry out certain executive tasks related to aviation safety, such as the certification of aeronautical products and organisations involved in their design, production and maintenance.


All of this is from your website; Clear signs of Schizophrenia

[Whopity]

and here I was thinking hum's post was a spoofIt probably is, look at the Location! Sent to anyone on the EASA circulation list.
http://www.someworthwhilequotes.com/images/graphics/limericks.jpg

[proudprivate]

In the EUssR fact IS stranger than fiction.....


I don't think that is particularly surprising. EASA has been on the receiving end of a lot of flack lately, and given the fact that Jules Kneepkens, who incidentally makes about € 15K + € 3K in benefits net a month (reference here (http://easa.europa.eu/recruitment/working-for-us.php#an1)), feels particularly concerned about the political stir, an initiative like this is meant as a backside cover at the taxpayer's expense.

Responses are likely to be selective and more benign than what was sent by a lot of participants in this forum and other to MP's, MEP's and Transport Ministers. So when confronted with complaints from any of those three, he can then waive his little survey statistic saying "Hey I'm not doing so bad after all".

The fact that resources like Alison Kerr are being used to compile this nonsense is proof that EASA, in contrast to spurious claims by bookworm, isn't understaffed at all. It might be that not enough competent expert people are working there, so that the workload for some is excessive. But even then, the modus operandi is so inefficient that one would prefer a shakedown before engage 50 more agents.

After all, would you like your pension age to be increased by another 2 years or so to pay for Mr Kneepkens' pension ?

[homonculus]

Like many others I know, I thought this email was indeed a spoof and deleted it as soon as I got it. I suspect the response will be rather feeble as a result