N-reg situation update

[S-Works]

By implication you decry those who have taken the FAA route for the reasonsyou give, and with the next breath wish the same system was adopted.

Jesus, I don't decry anyone. I have merely stated a number of times how the situation currently is. Of course I would love EASA to cease to exist and be replaced by the FAA or an FAA like system. It would save me a fortune, but as it is not going to happen, we are where we are and we either have to put up or shut up.

I have chosen to adopt the compliance route. Others choose to complain.

There is no dichotomy in that.

[Thomascl605]

I think it would bother the pilots involved MJ. But then again the FAA have a far more practical approach and wouldn't require an unworkable transition of 14 written exams and expensive flight tests, which couldn't be undertook whilst currently employed due to length of time it would take to pass the said conversion process.

The end result of all of this in Europe is that the Pilot is flying the same aircraft with a big 'N' on the tail, no differently than he/she has done before. We are not going to accept a conversion such as this due to the many many years of precedent already set.

[Fuji Abound]

Jesus, I don't decry anyone. I have merely stated a number of times how the
situation currently is. Of course I would love EASA to cease to exist and be
replaced by the FAA or an FAA like system. It would save me a fortune, but as it
is not going to happen, we are where we are and we either have to put up or shut
up.

I have chosen to adopt the compliance route. Others choose to
complain.

There is no dichotomy in that.


Yes, I fully understand, it is the easy option.

I was making two points earlier.

We may chose to comply; we may also chose to do everything we can to resist changes with which we dont agree (including for example supporting AOPA if they adopt the same position),

We can support those to chose to complain rather than constantly reminding them "we told them theirs was a lost cause". It might well be, it might not. However if you keep spouting the same message inevitably some might think you are just taking the p***, which would be a shame. Me, well I suspect you take some pleasure in stirring the pot at most available opportunities, but then I am a bit of an old fart.

[mad_jock]

I honestly don't think it would.

It would just be like any other conversion/validation, you would just crack on with it.

I can asure you that learning 4 different sets of airlaw hasn't been all joy. Especially as most of the differences are usually about VFR and how close to a hippo or camel you can fly when its having a dump. And if you say Flight level one zero zero or flight level one hundred. Never seems to be an option of read it back the same way the controller said it.

The theory apart from a quick reread of ace the pilot technical interview the JAR stuff covers everything you will need.

We are not going to accept a conversion such as this due to the many many years of precedent already set.

You won't have any choice in the matter. The general population really don't care about your plight and 99% of the other resident european pilots don't care either.

I don't think he is stiring more like trying to get them to face facts. A Young family and the high risk of not being able to provide for them. I would have the CC out quick as a flash.

Unless of course you have started down the JAR route in the past and found them to much and the FAA was the only way you could get into commercial flying. If thats the case the exams are a completely different kettle of fish for the last 5 years or so with the online exam question banks. Its monkey see and monkey tick the box next to what it's seen before these days. If you leave it until they change the question bank again you really will be knackard.

[Thomascl605]

No, they probably don't care unless it was to affect them. But then again there may be some other law to come from EASA that could affect everyone else in the future, who knows ?

That's not to say that just because people don't care that I'm just going to accept this latest set of drivel.

There will be a stand made against this for sure.

[mad_jock]

But then again there may be some other law to come from EASA that could affect everyone else in the future, who knows ?

I know there will and there has been, the FTL scheme for a start.

Hence much bigger things to be worried about than a load (or should I really say a very small percentage in the grand scale of things) of private aircraft pilots getting shafted.

[Thomascl605]

If you are not bothered then you probably won't want to post on this thread anymore then. Hope the FTL's don't sting too much.

[mad_jock]

What and let other pilots be infected with fantasys that its not going to happen?.

Better yet why don't you start up your own forum where all the pilots that are going to get shafted can talk themselves into believing that its not going to happen. I think you already have one and nobody has posted anything this year.

You would be more sensible to make the forum a place where you could all group together to try and make the groundschool less of a bitch by clubbing together to make it worth a groundschools while to do the brush ups in two/one day chunks at venues that are more convenient for bizjet pilots. Get similar type pilots together to get block bookings of sims and TRE's to get the costs down.

[frac]

Maybe, but that does not stop them owners of the airspace defining there own rules and that is where we are now. Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

The USA Allow operation of foreign registration aircraft in US Airspace even if the aircraft is "based" in the US.

We see a certain number of P4 (Aruba) or VP- business jets in the US.

Last time I flew to Mc Carran (KLAS), I saw VP-BLK, a 747SP Registered to Las Vegas Sands Corporation. I understand that they also operate VQ-BMS, another 747SP.

Regards,
Frac

[peterh337]

Although as far as I am aware the US do not allow you to operate a foreign reg on US soil long term.

Yawn, another piece of old bollox which does the rounds.

There is no such reg.

It would merely be stupid to operate a plane out there if it doesn't run under the FAA regime, because all the other regimes are going to be poorly supported and more costly. For a G-reg you will need to find a Part M company.

There is an apparently true story that somebody did a round the world flight in a G-reg and when they got to Australia, they needed an Annual but the UK CAA refused to allow the local MO to do it; they wanted to fly out a couple of their inspectors out there at a vast expense. In the end, the plane was moved to N-reg and continued the trip :)

I've been operating under both regimes; 3 years under G and 7 under N, so I know them both.

[S-Works]

I still think its a moot point though. I liken dealing with the politicians on this the same as fuel taxes. They are going to go up regardless of him many lorries blockade a refinery or how many threats of it bringing down a government are made, they may delay things to make you think you are winning and then when not expecting it they slip it through. Nearly £1.50 a litre for Diesel today at a supermarket.......

Methinks you can shout and wail as much you like, but unfortunately you are not going to beat the faceless political machine.

[Pace]

Bose

Firstly apologies over the licence issue earlier in the thread! I know a few guys who jumped through licence conversion loopholes and they can be the worst at slating N reg. I appreciate that was not your route it would not have been an issue had it been ;)

You are probably right That EASA are just going through the motions with the intention of then turning around and stating that it was not their fault that negotiations on a bi lateral failed.

They will still have a legal problem with employed pilots should anyone make a legal challenge in the EC courts.
This appears to be ignored yet it is a real issue they are aware of.

My contact who is on the June negotiating team states that both EASA and the FAA are serious about adding FCL to the existing Bi Lateral.
My question re starting exams was met with a do nothing so we will see how genuine they are.

Remember the whole thing nearly fell apart at Parliament stage where 5 MEPs were against were persuaded to vote the ship through with promises!

I do not think as Mad Jock reckons that it is a done deal. I am sure by 2014 we will have a different picture again! What that picture is ??? Only Mad Jock knows for certain :E

My own jet may go out of EU ops anyway so I will hold fire for a few months and see where its all heading.

Pace

[S-Works]

My contact who is on the June negotiating team states that both EASA and the FAA are serious about adding FCL to the existing Bi Lateral.

See my point about fuel taxes, industry put pressure on the government who just delayed the rise and then slipped it in later. We are still being hit by outrageous fuel tax and I bet it goes up again in the next budget.

My question re starting exams was met with a do nothing so we will see how genuine they are.

Same as the fuel tax, said by the haulage and lobbying firms.


Remember the whole thing nearly fell apart at Parliament stage where 5 MEPs were against were persuaded to vote the ship through with promises!

Yep, and they still got it through because its the dirty way that politics work.

You only have to look at the demands that EASA are making with regards to the bi lateral to realise the FAA are not going to give in. Can you really see the FAA agreeing to annual tests for everything or EASA giving into rolling currency?

We keep talking about the other bi lateral agreements with the FAA, but if you look at say the US-Canada agreement the revalidation requirements were already aligned, the TK was already aligned. At the moment we have a massive gulf between the FAA and the EASA requirements that I do not see a bi lateral overcoming. What we need to concentrate on is making or own system more proportional. It's the vast gold plating that needs to be pulled away and made in line with other countries that is going to foster proper bi lateral agreements.

At the moment we have an entire system that is just not fit for purpose. Look at the licences we now have 5 or 6 of them at last count to replace what my old UK CAA ICAO licence or my singe FAA certificate does. This is standardisation?

[mm_flynn]

You only have to look at the demands that EASA are making with regards to the bi lateral to realise the FAA are not going to give in. Can you really see the FAA agreeing to annual tests for everything or EASA giving into rolling currency?

No, but my understanding of the process of the bilateral is not 'your paper is accepted as though it was mine', but more like 'I will recognise your paper as proving the competency that my testing proves'.

As such, it would be quite reasonable for EASA to say, 'I recognise your paper, but you need a revalidation now to align with my currency rules for me to give you my paper'. Equally, it would not be at all surprising that both countries might want people to prove they can speak English and have been tested on things that are objectively different - such as airlaw (and physics :) )

Do you have a reference to the two party's current negotiating positions?

[S-Works]

'I recognise your paper, but you need a revalidation now to align with my currency rules for me to give you my paper'.

That already exists. Unfortunately it is rather to onerous for many.... What people are looking for is simplification of this down to effectively something like an air law exam and skill test.

The requirements to get a permanent certificate are actually the same already at face value.

ATPL JAA to FAA - Pass the ATP exam and check ride on type and bobs your uncle.

ATPL FAA to JAA - Pass the ATPL exam and check ride on type and bobs your uncle.

CPL FAA to JAA - Pass the CPL & IR Exams, training as prescribed and check ride.

CPL JAA to FAA - Pass the Cpl & IR Exams, training as prescribed and check ride.

I only know what the headline 'agenda' items are from discussion with contacts in the EASA licensing team through my interaction with them in the day job. I am sure Pace's contact can supply the full details.

If you just want a plain validation then it is pretty much the same as the 61.75 process but obviously time limited.

[peterh337]

Most people have lost the will to argue this stuff over and over, a long time ago, but 1 or 2 keep coming back because quite a lot of unknown people read these threads and might get duff info from them.

I think mm_flynn has got it right. Any bilateral agreement will not deliver a straight paper swap because EASA would be trashing the whole gold plated Euro FTO establishment, which simply isn't going to happen.

The FAA has very little to "give away" on the FCL front because they already allow most of what one would reasonably want. It is EASA that would be giving up a huge amount of a long-entrenched position. I just can't see what is there to usefully negotiate.

What big prize has the FAA got for EASA that would make it worthwhile trashing the European ATP cadet sausage machine which despite occassional (but in this business utterly inevitable) "setbacks" like Cabair ;) is making loads of dosh for loads of people?

[mm_flynn]

Bose-X,

The difference between today and my hypothetical bilateral would be.


Rather than pass 7 or 14 exams (or 1 going the FAA way) designed to test all relevant (and much irrelevant) knowledge, It would be one exam /or possibly Oral to test knowledge of the legitimate differences.
Rather than an initial skills test, it would be the normal periodic check flight
There would be no minimum qualifying experience - i.e. no 100 hours P1 instrument time (the IR) or 100 hours as pilot (PPL) or 700 hours including 200 in the activity (CPL)
There would be no requirement for a minimum training period or training at the X's discretion


All in all it would be an acceptance that the pilot is as qualified as if the paper was issued by the local authority - with specific allowances for real local difference. Human factors would be a good example of a real local difference where European physiology is significantly weaker than North American :):) and hence its requirement to be tested for a non-commercial conversion

[peterh337]

Historically, I think it's true to say that most ICAO papers have been converted with an air law exam (to supposedly address the local airspace issues) and a flight test.

Logically, it's hard to argue with the above. The flight test is the ultimate check for somebody arriving with forged or otherwise bogus papers, which would be an obvious thing to try when going for a conversion route (and reading the airline pilot forums on here it seems to be common in certain parts of the world).

The problem is that even the air law stuff in Euroland is nearly all utter crap. Reportedly it was generated (excreted) by a Portugese ATCO and you get gems like this

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/morebull.gif

which make a mockery of any pretence that this is being studied to make you a safe pilot in Europe.

Then, in the present system, for a working pilot, multiply the above by 14. To even get signed off to sit the exams (by the ground school FTO) you have to wade through some 3000 pages of this crap to do their homework. (CATS uses a better online system).

Even for the FCL008/CBM IR proposal, EASA did not have the resources to re-do any of the IR syllabus, so they took the existing Learning Objectives (syllabus) and chopped them down.

Can you really see EASA signing a bilateral with the FAA and comprehensively re-hashing the TK?

I like the comment about human factors :) Here are a few more gems

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/bull4.gif


http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/hpbull1.gif


http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/hpbull2.gif

[Pace]

I tend to agree that any Bi Lateral will not be a straight swap or even anything which will water down the training structure already in the EASA system.
A Bi lateral agreement could be shared authority over N reg aircraft based in Europe.
The complaint of EASA revolves around not having oversight/control over N reg so a Bi Lateral in that sense would work.
Sadly all this Rubbish churned out of EASA has cost 300 million Euro.
EASA had the opportunity in this rewrite of bringing FAA, Canada, much closer together where a proper Bi Lateral was possible! Using the FAA structure they could have achieved a result which would have cost a fraction of the price and achieved uniformity ....But ???
So sadly a missed opportunity which could have decomplicated aviation in Europe and reduced costs.
I tend to agree with Bose that self interest has driven the structure we are faced with and self interest towards the regulators themselves rather than the safety issues EASA are supposed to protect.

Pace

[chubbychopper]

Pace, with the GREATEST respect old chap, but please....

We know which side of the fence you are on
We have heard ALL of the arguments that you repeat day after day
We KNOW it's sh1t
We know that there is protectionism going on
We know they are a corrupt bunch of w*n**ers writing this cr*p
We KNOW they promised a bi lateral agreement
We know they lied
We know you don't have an EASA licence
We certainly KNOW there is no safety issue

Please mate, believe me - I AM on your side, but repeating the same mantra day after day really isn't gonna make a jot of difference! We know it is a scam, we KNOW there is no safety issue, but PLEASE PLEASE STOP REPEATING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Please.

Pretty please.

They are NOT reading you.

They do not care.

They are not in the slightest bit concerned about the threat of potential legal action.

It is a done and dusted deal.......please please please STOP, accept it, get studying and spare us all the same broken record stuff that we know inside out and upside down! Please!!!!!

[Thomascl605]

Well Chubby if Pace bothers you that much then don't read this thread, pure and simple.

I am totally with Pace and many others on this subject.

1. No, we won't roll over and get shafted and won't be studying for the 14 exams crap. A true professional Pilot will evaluate this situation for what it is, apply common sense and decide not to accept the idiotic decisions coming from EASA.

2. If you wish to doff the cap and in essence be another clone of the decision making of these idiots then be my guest.

3. Don't underestimate a court case, and don't underestimate the positive outcome for the pilots that will bring it.

[S-Works]

Thomas, the problem as I see it.....

The N reg flyers died a death and they were supposed to be fighting the corner.

How many pilots do you know with the money to take a EASA to court? Who has the pull to organise a class action or whatever it's called and has the money to represent the pilots enmasse? I would doubt you would get a lawyer to represent no win no fee as the case us just not strong enough. So I think that your 'clutching straw' of a legal case is a no hoper. However if you can share expert legal opinion rather than barrack room law I would certainly be interested in looking at it. My pilot lawyer friend thinks its a no hoper, but who knows!

Don't fall back on telling people not to read the thread just because they don't agree with you and are telling you things you don't want to hear it dies nothing to help your position.

edit: speeeeling and grammar...

[peterh337]

A Bi lateral agreement could be shared authority over N reg aircraft based in Europe.
The complaint of EASA revolves around not having oversight/control over N reg so a Bi Lateral in that sense would work.Lack of oversight is another massive misconception.

The CAA here can ground any unsafe aircraft here.

The CAA and the police can inspect any aircraft here.

The CAA here can inspect the papers of any pilot here.

The CAA can make a report to the FAA of a dodgy A&P/IA (etc) and the FAA will bust him faster than he can read this (and I know of a few who got banned from practicing for a few months, which rather tends to concentrate the mind when your livelihood is gone).

An N-reg in Europe is much more vulnerable to inspections because it has no VAT treaty protection.

An N-reg maintained here is 99% likely to be maintained by a Part M company, so it supports the industry and helps the company to pay the CAA the annual approval fees ;) The only difference is that the N-reg return to service is signed by an individual rather than by the Part M company (but under the new EASA OPS rules any "complex" will require the Part M signoff also..... so more ££££££££ going to the local CAA ;) ;) ).

Does the CAA do ramp checks on G-regs? No.

Does the CAA bust EASA145 companies who use bogus-history parts and thus issue bogus EASA145 forms and the CAA has known about them for years? No. Not, apparently, as long as the said company is paying the CAA approval fees ;)

So, "lack of oversight" is a load of nonsense.

If I was going to operate a plane which

- has never been serviced
- is unregistered
- has a bogus number on the side
- is uninsured
- no FM Immune avionics
- runs on car petrol

and I had

- no license
- no medical
- no nuffink, never even had formal flight training but I knew how to fly and do the radio

and I wanted to fly it all over Europe, airways, the lot, what reg would I pick?

G

[S-Works]

Wow..... I had no idea the UK GA licensing and certification system was so corrupt. have you thought about sharing your evidence with the UK CAA Peter?

Or am I to assume that the Belgrano is like some corrupt African state and they are in it for the back handers as well?

[mad_jock]

A true professional Pilot will evaluate this situation

And realise that they are pointing the machine into a situation where they don't have an escape route.

The wake vortex question is for civilians operating into military airfields which don't seperate you for wake votex. You can ask for anything and they will clear you for it. Also in alot of the world outside europe they don't have a clue about wake vortex or its the pilots responsability.

Another situation that you have to watch is helicopters operating a seperate circuit to a spot or ruff ground next to the runway.

The numbers are neither here nor there but its more the concept you need to have vortex seperation.

[421C]

Bose,
Peter didn't say that. He said lack of oversight was a massive misconception and he is right.

His other points are that Europe has a safety model based on "organisational approvals" rather than "individual accountability". The former works well in the airline world, because there is the scale to make it work and no other model makes sense. Part 121 is much the same in the US.

For GA maintenance and training, the organisational approval model adds a lot of overhead and little benefit IMHO. As an aircraft owner, I would have zero extra confidence in the costs and complexity Part M introduces. I also think the Peter is right that an organisation can "hide behind its approvals" and I do get the sense that if a poor Part M business ticks the boxes, pays its fees etc, the actual quality of what it does is almost secondary. Similarly for flight training to an extent. UK training is of a good quality because there are a lot of good people involved. The vast amount of paperwork adds little. You run a TRTO, you know this. The students who lost £70k when Cabair went bust know this.

The CAA's economic model adds to the distortion inherent in the EASA and pre-EASA framework. The CAA can't charge a general tax or a ramp inspection fee, they can charge for approvals and paperwork. It's no criticism of the people, you make any organisation dependent on a hammer, and that organisation will start seeing a lot of nails out there.

brgds
421C

[mad_jock]

Your getting focused on real reasons again which as we have all said safety is not the reason why they are doing it.

They just want local pilots and local aircraft under there control and paying them money. Just like all the other pilots who are under local reg.

[421C]

MJ
For once we agree. I think its probably not even the fees, since outside the UK the NAAs are less fee dependent. There's not one single EU cabal masterminding the FRA issue. My impression is that there's a mix of motives going back many years.

Until say around the early 2000s, the N-reg had operated fairly low key, in limited numbers and no-one really cared. In the UK, it was mainly bizjets operated sensibly for obvious reasons and a few high-end pistons like the Baron or Malibu or Cessna 300/400 series for owners who wanted FAA medicals and IRs.

The "problem" started about 10 years ago. The light aircraft market revitalised, with Cirrus at the lower end and the promise of the VLJs at the higher end. A few things then happened.
- the effects of the JAA were felt, including the various medical and training difficulties
- people started buying new aircraft. Most, apart from VFR light sport stuff, went straight onto the N - Cirrus, Beech, Socata,etc
- some of this was driven by better regulation under the FAA, some by the fact the many exciting new aircraft couldn't get UK TCs (TBM700, PC12, Columbia 300-400)
- people started moving older simple SEPs onto the N (PA28s, C172/182s) as awareness of the ease of the FAA system and frustration with the JAA increased

This resulted in various different reactions around Europe (I am sort of making up the next bit, but I think it impressionistically right). The German regulators got into a panic about the prospect of thousands of Eclipse light jets swarming around flown by FAA PPL/IRs. Various UK and French regulators realised that the trend was such that most of the future light aircraft fleet, other than trainers, would end up on the US register. The collective view was that "something must be done", in particular about FAA IRs. I suspect professionals like Pace and Thomas were just collateral damage, sadly.

The obvious remedy would have been to fix the bad elements of JAA regulations, and indeed this is what EASA initially promised. Unfortunately, the temptation to preserve and gold-plate the JARs was not resisted, except for some useful exceptions like the LAPL and Part MED in places.

The final irony, of course, is that this EU system for GA, that's meant to be so important that FRA operators have to be forced into it, was acknowledged to be a failure by the EASA Management Board and a group of countries tasked with rethinking the whole thing....

[soaringhigh650]

Please mate, believe me - I AM on your side, but repeating the same mantra day after day really isn't gonna make a jot of difference!


peterh337 - given your a pilot of substantial experience, you need get up from your chair, start contacting your representatives and look at how to getting things changed.

I've said this before and I make no apologies for saying this again:

Moonlighting on Internet forums with an attitude of "all other parties are on some vested-interest gravy train" and "the whole world is totally out there to screw me over" is clearly not going to help yourself or any of us here.

If what you speak is substance, please go and act on it!

[peterh337]

I don't think I wrote that quote, but IME writing to one's MP just produces a pre-prepared standard response letter.

The best thing is creating awareness, and like it or not pilot forums are effective in that. Look at the bizjet community - probably 99% of them are still totally clue-less about this stuff. That's because they fly instead of chatter :)

Re the earlier stuff, I don't see there has been any organised top level anti N-reg move in the principal "GA" countries i.e. UK Germany and France. Not even recently.

As I've said, the CAAs get most of the money off the N-reg community anyway, via maintenance facilities, and the Govt gets the tax via avgas (whose purchases by the IFR community are substantial). Route charges are collected off the lot. The only bits they don't get are license renewals and AME fees which amount to a miniscule % of the "flying taxes" one pays. The average IFR pilot probably pays more money to Jeppesen :) Hey - there's an idea. Tax Jepp :E

N-reg GA seems to have been happily tolerated by the regulators in these countries. They had ample opportunities, and means, of clobbering it. (I won't list some obvious ones). But they very deliberately didn't do that. They merely prevented foreign regs being operated for money and this kept flight training and most AOC ops on the local regs, thus protecting the bulk of the income stream.

I think the EASA FCL anti-N-reg stuff is a private project run by a few individuals in Cologne. Looking at the "legal" crap they have drafted and forced through the transport committee, they are not even particularly clever.

[mad_jock]

421c I agree with everything you have said.

I might add also the N reg fleet and its acceptance in central europe dates back to the after WWII and the amount of none european long term residents which were there for the cold war.

The biz jet side of things has other things and lobbying going on in the back ground which I don't really understand or for that matter care about. There is a heap of rivalary between AOC operators and various other interested parties.

I think there is a large group that think if the N reg biz jets dissappear then life will be come easier and more prosporus. In reality I think there are just as many grey charters in european regs as there is in 3rd country regs. I am sure the boys will return that this is just rubbish pointing the finger at N reg and they are more than likely correct its a global problem.

But it comes down to this resident thing and who controls what.

And I don't think people put enough weight on the fact that the authorities have been publically slagged off for years on forums and in the press about there system and how N reg is better. There have been numerous articles etc about how to opt out of the local NAA's control usually using a N reg.

As you say they were looking at not having a GA fleet or any GA pilots. But the number of movements remaining the same or even increasing.

I think they are actually excedingly clever Peter, you don't know which direction they are going to hit you from next. The NAA's won't publically come out and show face with what there intentions are.

This will have been all worked out in an office by a load of civil servants aka "yes prime minster" then fed in a certain way to the politicians to fire them up. Your up against oxford/cam eductated guys that have been playing the goverment game for 40 plus years.

[421C]

writing to one's MP just produces a pre-prepared standard response
letter.

The best thing is creating awareness, and like it or not pilot forums are effective in that
You don't think pilot organisations have a role to play in lobbying? What have many many years of "awareness" and thousands of posts on FRA here achieved? We are essentially repeating the same debate that's been repeated in countless previous threads. We all write pretty much the same stuff, with minor variation. We could just change the dates on an old thread to save time typing.....

Peter- gets angry, mentions "gravy trains"
421- pontificates in long boring posts
Bose - needles Peter
Pace - angry too but convinced about what his lawyer friend told him
Fuji - always convinced he was right all along, about what we are not sure
MJ - lives up to the first part of his user name in many posts, with occasional outbreaks of sense

(the intention of the above was to make fun of all of us, myself included, to the same extent!)

Of course, new participants join in, but they fit a small number of categories :

"Captain Oblivious": "I haven't looked at a GA website or magazine since the 90s. I fly an N-reg Thruster 180XL, how will this "EUASA" thing affect me?"
"Colonel Mustard": "British pilots should damn well get British papers and damn this johnny-foreigner FAA - next we'll be allowing human sacrifce and polygamy if we just let people pick and choose regulations from around the world"
etc etc

[peterh337]

There have been numerous articles etc about how to opt out of the local NAA's control usually using a N reg.

I meant to ignore you MJ but let me make an exception.

There have been NO such articles (that I have seen).

There have been plenty of articles explaining how N-reg operation delivers a more streamlined and safer operating regime.

I have never met a pilot who was particularly out to get out of his CAA's "control". AFAICT most N-reg owners also have local CAA PPLs and medicals (possibly lapsed, like mine were at one point) so the local CAA knows all about them anyway.

[S-Works]

There have been NO such articles (that I have seen).

There is an internet website full of all sorts of 'advice' about it. ;);)

Peter's Website (http://www.peter2000.co.uk)

Moving to N-reg (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/index.html)

There have been plenty of articles explaining how N-reg operation delivers a more streamlined and safer operating regime.

You are going to have to explain the difference.....

[peterh337]

Gosh I am getting lots of free publicity (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=76506&start=30).

Tell ya what "Mr TRTO Examiner". If I got 10% every time somebody bought a TB20 after reading my writeups, I would be flying a brand new shiny TBM850 (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/tbm850/index.html) :)

[S-Works]

Oh, you don't need me to help you promote yourself Peter, you do an exemplary job of it on your own...... ;)

And if you are going to use titles it is Head of Training and Examiner at UK FTO/TRTO..... ;)

I did find this article written by some guy called Peter who tells us all the reasons for moving to the N Reg that seem quite clearly to make Mad Jocks point. What do you reckon to it as you did make an assertion that no such articles existed.

Email:

[email protected]


:ok:


Benefits:

a) A pilot with the FAA IR gets worldwide FAA IR privileges. This is the #1 reason private pilots do it, in most cases.

b) No Insurance Premium Tax (saves 5% on the premium)

c) Easier installation of modifications. The approval route (337, DER, etc) may not be cheap (especially via a UK avionics shop) but the process is usually straightforward. In theory one can obtain UK CAA/EASA approval for anything on a G-reg but the process can be very expensive for even small mods and is completely uneconomical in many cases.

d) Can fit STCd aftermarket accessories which are already approved in the USA but aren't not CAA approved e.g. much better landing lights. Can also fit PMAd parts.

e) Pilot maintenance is permitted, to an extent which is currently superior to the UK Private CofA regime. This is a bit of a complicated subject; the two regimes were very similar until EASA came along, but now EASA is treating as "mandatory" a lot of things which previously were not mandatory. One example is the 12 year engine life limit which prevents the issue of an initial G-reg CofA, for no apparent reason given that the rest of the world isn't worried about it.

e2) For EASA-reg aircraft, there is currently a CAA/EASA requirement to comply with all ADs that apply to the aircraft regardless of the country of the AD issue. So if you have a G-reg it has to comply with ADs from the FAA that affect it or any components on it, whereas an N-reg aircraft (Part 91) needs to comply only with FAA ADs even if it contains parts that are subject to an EASA AD. The degree to which this saves costs is probably questionable in most cases, but it is a good thing given the past tendency of for example the UK CAA to generate large numbers of ADs which every other country thinks are pointless. There are few if any important EASA ADs which are not also FAA ADs. The reference for this requirement is currently in CAA CAP411 5.1 All applicable Airworthiness Directives issued by EASA, the CAA and any applicable Third Country Airworthiness Authority which is responsible for the state of design must be complied with.

f) In some situations, reclaim of duty on parts is possible with an End User Certificate. This is however possible to achieve anyway using a Form C100 - more details here (local copy).

g) The CAA Notice 75 propeller inspection, generally regarded as causing more problems than it prevents, is not required. Update 10/2007: Notice 75 has been replaced by CAP747 Generic Requirement 17. Mostly the 3 year/6 year cycle has been replaced by overhaul in accordance with manufacturers recomendations, normally 6 years or 2000hrs.

h) Can freely buy parts (new and overhauled) from the USA. This can be a major cost benefit of N-reg. An 8130-3 form is desirable but not mandatory; the regulations are in FAA Order 8130.21. Some notes on required documentation are here. An 8130-3 is OK for a G-reg aircraft but only if the part is new. Overhauled or used parts with an 8130-3 cannot be fitted to a G-reg; they need an EASA Form 1 which can be generated only by an EASA 145 company and this usually increases the cost substantially. 4/2011: it is widely claimed that EASA regs mandate an EASA-1 form for absolutely everything, which would be a ludicrous cost inflater.

i) If an SB (Service Bulletin) becomes an AD (Airworthiness Directive) then it becomes mandatory and must be implemented. The majority of ADs track between CAA/EASA and the FAA but there are still CAA ADs which the FAA has not mandated. Given that around 75% of the world's General Aviation is in the USA, this appears pointless regulation. However, the FAA is gradually implementing a process whereby mandatory SBs on European-manufactured aircraft are automatically converted into FAA ADs and thus the work must be done on such an aircraft even if it is N-reg - additional info here. This applies to future EASA MSBs only; it is not retrospective.

j) The USA has filed some differences to ICAO on the medical front and has not imposed the audiogram requirement (reference here) which is required for a JAA CPL/ATPL or a JAA PPL/IR (it is not required for a plain JAA PPL). This unreasonable requirement means that a pilot with one perfect ear and one ear which doesn't meet the specification (a common enough condition especially among older people) cannot ever get a JAA IR - even though the headsets are monaural so one bad ear doesn't matter. JAA permits "demonstrated ability" but only on a renewal medical - this is ironic since all airline pilots who are actually working are flying on renewal medicals!. 12/2010: there is some hope here that this may change.

k) In some situations where an aircraft is technically "rented" but not in the normal sense of the word (e.g. an individual owns a business which owns the aircraft, and the aircraft is rented back to the individual; this is a common procedure done under the UK Inland Revenue Benefit in Kind rules) an N-reg aircraft is legal if maintained under Part 91 rules, whereas a G-reg aircraft thus operated would arguably need to be maintained to a Transport CofA regime, and that is significantly more expensive (50hr checks, 150hr checks, all done by a JAR145 company, plus a lot of pointless maintenance) and is pointless given that the actual operation is identical to a fully privately operated aircraft flown by the very same pilot.

l) It's easier to find good freelance maintenance engineers to work on N-reg aircraft than on G-reg. This means you can assemble a group of very good people who you can trust. For the Annual you may still have to go to a large-ish firm (because of the amount of work involved, not many freelance engineers can do Annuals) but for everything else you can make sure that the job is done properly, preferably with you present and helping out. With a G-reg, and particularly if on a Transport CofA, you may have to use a certain kind of company and the problem with using a company is that it is harder to attribute bad workmanship to a particular individual. This makes it easier to avoid the numerous crooked maintenance companies; a common EASA Part M scam is to pretend that the initial Annual needs a "back to birth" inspection of everything...

l2) When on a long trip away from Europe, it is much easier to get maintenance on an N-reg aircraft than on any EU-reg aircraft. There was a case where the Annual on a G-reg expired while passing through Australia. The UK CAA refused to accept Australian maintenance and insisted on a CAA inspector to fly out there (first class) to do it. It was cheaper to transfer the aircraft to N-reg and fly it back that way, which is what was done...

m) There is no 150-hour service. For G-reg pilots who do more than 150 hours per year, this is a major added cost as the 150 hour check costs almost as much as the full Annual.

n) There is a relatively straightforward regime for owner produced parts. This is particularly relevant for aircraft types where the original manufacturer is no longer producing the parts. In short, he owner can make the part, for his own aircraft only. However, this is not a free-for-all for making one's own bits; the part's manufacture and installation still requires to be documented and is likely to be queried by a subsequent buyer. URL local copy

o) The US aircraft market is much bigger than the European one, especially for more advanced types which are much more ubiquitious out there due to the much more accessible IR. This makes an aircraft import from the USA attractive, but transferring the N-reg aircraft to a European reg can be problematic.

[peterh337]

And the other half?

Come on, prove that you really know how to cut and paste in an Ipad. I can't.

But as I am in a good mood I will save you the work:

Drawbacks:
a) For full worldwide privileges, the pilot needs an FAA License. One can fly an N-reg on a UK/JAA license but only within the UK (not the Channel Islands). In fact any ICAO license is OK but FAR 61.3 limits its use to the airspace of the country that issued it. Whether the UK NPPL is OK is a good question; similarly there has been some doubt over whether the UK IMC Rating is valid or whether a UK/JAA PPL with a night qualification can be used to fly an N-reg at night in the UK; more info here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/misc-privileges/index.html).


a1) While FAR 61.3 allows an N-reg to be flown outside the USA on any foreign license provided that license has been issued by the owner of the airspace concerned, the airspace owner is able to disallow this. I have a confirmation (1/2008) that Belgium does this, and requires any N-reg flown in its airspace to be flown under either an FAA license, or a FAA validation of a Belgian license (no indication this is enforced). There may be other instances of this. However, 61.3 is not a useful concession since most pilots only have one license and thus the aircraft cannot leave the one country...



b) There was a question mark over the ability to rent out an N-reg aircraft, and common rumour has been that a Dry Lease is required if one does so. The legislation (FAA and UK) is silent on this subject, and extensive enquiries have not found anything supporting the Dry Lease requirement. On 1st March 2005, Roger Kinsey at the DfT confirmed to me that renting is OK provided the renters don't do any aerial work in it. The DfT will not (officially) give permission to anyone who has rented an N-reg aircraft, even for any form of training and that includes a BFR (unless the instructor does it for free - see the link in g) below) but in practice they are quite helpful, so it's always a good idea to ask them. So anyone renting an N-reg aircraft (UK airspace) needs to already be legal to be PIC in the type. More details here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/dft.html).


c) Cannot do PPL Cost Sharing. Even though the FAA does have such a scheme, it cannot be operated in UK airspace on a foreign registered aircraft as this would breach 2005 ANO Article 140. Passengers are not permitted to make any contribution to costs in UK airspace. There is also the theoretical possibility that a payment from a passenger on a flight which took place wholly within a country where the aircraft is not registered could be regarded as cabotage. I carry a letter from a senior French Customs official assuring that cabotage will not be applied to private flights, but there is the possibility that they might not regard such as a "private" flight to start with. The safest thing is for the pilot to not accept any money from passengers, in an N-reg flying in Europe, and make this very clear before the flight (before witnesses, if the passengers are not known to the pilot http://www.peter2000.co.uk/misc/smilie.gif).


d) Document checks: U.S. registered aeroplanes are provocative to people who do not like U.S. foreign policy and while the European aviation world is nearly universally professional there are sporadic exceptions where Customs/Police officials do targeted document checks, so documents (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/docs.html) must be carried on board and be in order. In particular, they look for a document showing EU VAT has been paid on the aircraft, and for the pilot's IR if he arrived via an IFR flight plan / instrument approach. Under an EU VAT treaty, a country has the right to query the VAT status of any aircraft which is registered within that same country, or outside the EU. These checks have been reported in France and Germany in particular. It would probably be unwise to take a flying holiday around Iran, of course... Also, each pilot flying under the privileges of an FAA license, outside U.S. airspace, needs to have his own radio license; details in the Documents link above.


e) While most European maintenance shops do maintenance on N-reg aircraft, few of them have actual FAA approvals for anything. They can do the work by getting an FAA IA to come in and sign it off, but for many items (e.g. pitot-static system test) they have to get someone to come in who charges substantial hourly and travelling fees. This can increase costs.



e2) For Major Alterations, the common US system for field approvals, whereby a 337 is filled in by an IA and sent off to the local FSDO for approval, is not available to European N-reg owners. The only FSDO available for Europe is the NY IFO and they have stopped doing this work several years ago. The only remaining "official" option is to get a DER to generate an 8110-3 form which is then sent with a 337 to the FAA in Oklahoma for filing (they cannot, in general, refuse it) and this route (popular with European avionics shops) can add quite a bit of money and effort. However, a lot of installations can be done as Minor Alterations, using e.g. the Installation Manual as the Approved Data - it is up to the IA to determine if there is enough Approved Data. It is however also possible to process a 337 + Approved Data conventionally via a normal US FSDO, if you can find a co-operative one, as described here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/sn3500/index.html).


f) Prices charged to N-reg owners are more likely to get inflated than to G-reg owners. This is probably because N-reg planes tend to be owned by the pilot and so they get looked after better than the average G-reg self fly hire machine. A quick look around any European GA airfield shows the generally higher standard of N-reg aircraft over locally registered aircraft. It pays to get educated on how much something should cost before getting work done.


g) Any aerial work (which includes instruction or BFRs, if the instructor is being paid for it) requires permission from the DfT. More details here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/dft.html).


h) The trust requires you to sign the aircraft over to somebody that you have to trust and in theory they could just run off with it. I am not a lawyer but apparently this is very difficult for them to do (because the trust document obliges the legal owner to allow the beneficial owner to do more or less whatever he likes) and some also have insurance to cover various things. I have checked with one of the UK's largest aviation insurance firms and it is not possible for the beneficial owner to insure against a breach of the trust. They were unconcerned about it however, stating that one can get more problems if the US citizen that runs the trust dies. It's worth checking with him what provisions have been made for such cases. Update 2010: this has actually happened; the owner of Southern Aircraft Consultancy, Warren Chmura, did die in a motoring accident, but his brother (also a US citizen) took over immediately - just as he said would happen when I put the question to him years earlier.

i) If flying under a standalone FAA license, the pilot needs the FAA Class 3 medical as a minimum. The FAA Class 3 has stirred up some controversy, perhaps because it doesn't include an ECG. However The FAA Class 2 doesn't have an ECG either, below a certain age. ICAO does permit a national authority to impose its own medical requirements on resident pilots; this is rarely invoked but in 2004 the Irish CAA has reportedly taken advantage of this and refused to accept the FAA Class 3 for Ireland-based N-reg pilots. For some reason a FAA Class 2 is a lot cheaper than the CAA Class 2. For me, £60-80 against £150 for the CAA Class 2, both being very similar and done within 2 weeks of each other, and the FAA one was slightly more stringent (for me) on the eyesight. The FAA Class 3 is valid for an extra year but I reckon that one may as well go for the FAA Class 2, to avoid any potential for future trouble. Personally I hold an FAA Class 1 medical, which still costs only about £80, for both initial and renewals, while the CAA Class 1 initial is over £300.


j) An ELT is mandatory. It is probable that around 2009 the FAA will mandate it to be one which works on 121.50+406MHz, rather than the more common and cheaper 121.50-only or 121.50+243MHz types. The installation can be suprisingly expensive especiall if extra metalwork is required. Update 5/2010: it appears that the FAA has abandoned plans to make 406MHz ELTs mandatory (thus, a simple 121.5MHz ELT fulfills the legal requirement) but many/most European CAAs have mandated 406MHz and this applies to all aircraft flying in their airspace regardless of registration.

k) The FAA will not accept some modifications that the CAA (now EASA) will accept (and vice versa). The FAA is fussy in some departments; for example a TB20 aircraft with full TKS is certified for flight in icing on a G-reg but not on the N-reg - this is because the FAA requires two alternators and other items.



l) There are sporadic instances of non-EU aircraft requiring longer PPR notifications e.g. 24hrs instead of 3hrs. This has been noticed in Greece but there are likely many others. Entry into Turkey needs 24hr prior notice from the Turkish CAA (confirmed 2007). It is always worth faxing the destination airport regarding PPR requirements, giving the N- tail number so they can see in advance it is US registered, in case they are different to the published ones. I reckon that some of the issues I have come across with PPR might well be the result of prejudice against U.S. aircraft and this has been cited as a prime reason why owners of business jets are looking at the Isle of Man (M-reg) register.



m) The recent American TSA regulations have caused havoc with FAA training. A useful summary is here (http://www.aopa.org/tsa_rule/#questions) and here (https://www.flightschoolcandidates.gov/) and it's worth noting that the TSA applies even to certain classes of FAA instruction (mainly PPL and IR) outside the USA! The Visa situation is more of a grey area but it is most likely needed for a PPL or an IR. Getting FAA training in the UK is not much of a problem but getting checkrides organised in the UK is difficult. More details are in this (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-pplir/index.html) article.


n) In the USA, FAR 91.175 prohibits an instrument approach other than using an official instrument approach procedure (IAP), and this possibly applies to N-reg aircraft worldwide. More details here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/far91-175.html).


o) Going back to G-reg can be problematic. Think about this carefully! There are cases where an aircraft with certain certification issues can exist on a G-reg, but it could not be placed on G-reg today. Of course they have to get a CofA every so often (or the EASA equivalent these days) but that is not the same as an initial CofA, which involves an inspector crawling all over the aircraft and checking that every non-original item (well, every item he can spot) has acceptable documentation. If you go to N-reg and then want to go back, you might get caught by this - even if you have not done any mods. The EASA 12-year engine life issue is one recent issue. However, the whole EASA business (Part M specifically) is in a state of flux and nobody knows what will happen. There is also the more general problem (see h) under Benefits above) that a part can be fitted to an N-reg purely on the basis of an STC or PMA approval, signed off by an IA, but such an aircraft cannot go back on G-reg unless the part came with additional documentation; more details here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/forms.html).


p) While a US based owner can choose which U.S. mainland FSDO he uses to approve a modification, non-US owners have to go via the NY IFU, but the NY IFU stopped processing avionics 337s around 2010. There are ways around this, by using a DER to generate approved data which is then submitted via a different process, but this is a lot more expensive. Some details are here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/sn3500/index.html).


q) Denmark has some curious regs banning the basing of foreign reg planes there, particularly by Danish residents URL (http://www.slv.dk/Dokumenter/dsweb/Get/Document-10212/AIC%20B%2066%202009.pdf) local copy (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/AIC%20B%2066%202009.pdf) Google translation (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/faa-nreg/denmark.txt). There are reports of fines being imposed (around £300) but it does not appear the legality of this policy has been tested properly. It is obviously very difficult to frame legislation which imposes a long term parking time limit, so any practical implementaton is bound to be ad hoc.


r) In 2012, the EU has finally passed into law some ludicrously vague proposals requiring all pilots to have EASA licenses/ratings regardless of aircraft registration, if the "operator" is EU based. More links are at the end of this article. Some countries have opted for a 2 year delay (to April 2014) but, for IFR, this will eventually cause a significant increase in the effort to reach IFR capability and will reduce the incentive to own an N-reg aircraft to cases where the more reasonable certification regime (unusual equipment, mods, etc) is sufficiently relevant.

Benefits and Drawbacks Summary
For most private pilots and given an aircraft that can be registered under G or is already, there is no significant benefit in the N registration, particularly given the cost of the transfer (see more details below). The most pressing reason is likely to be the FAA IR. Other reasons might be the wish to fit certain items (typically avionics) for which obtaining EASA approval is unrealistic, or the wish to purchase an aircraft (from e.g. the USA) with such items already fitted. In a few cases it can be medical issues related to the JAA IR which is probably the JAA audiogram requirement.
I also think that there is very little difference in the cost of scheduled maintenance - if you do the stuff that is actually important for safety and long airframe life. The major cost savings come from the ready use of FAA STCs, and - given the EASA Part M regime now running in Europe - from the ability to use freelance FAA A&P/IA engineers.

[S-Works]

I gave a link to it earlier. I would not want to rob you of the opportunity to share us all your website link yet again.... ;)

[peterh337]

I confidently predict MJ will now disappear for 2 weeks while he is reading that.

[peterh337]

To a degree it depends on how much you have in the way of "lifed" parts, which in turn depends on the manufacturer's maintenance manual.

Obviously most planes are American, and obviously most currently flying are very old and probably no longer made, and their MMs were written decades ago when the regulatory climate was that the MM was a guide to stuff that needed to be done and the A&P knew how to really do it.

In the new European climate, the maintainer is deemed to be incompetent so the regs are much more prescriptive. This is also reflected in the Major and Minor alteration process which in Europe is very prescriptive and leaves virtually no discretion to anybody in the field.

Of course nothing actually changes; the incompetent maintainers still do half the job they are supposed to do but they have a lot more boxes to tick, and a lot of the less visible mods are simply done off the books. It's like ISO9000; the companies which made crap before make crap after, but this time the crap is shipped with a nice Certificate of Conformity. We do CofCs at work too; it's just another template in the accounts software :E But the piece I really love is the utterly and completely bogus Arab Certificate of Origin which we buy for £30 from the local "Chamber of Commerce" and charge to the customer at £100 :E:E Which reminds me... at £25 we charge too little for an EUR1 :)

ps Most IAs in Europe are freelance too. I think some are employed by FAR 145 repair stations... but even the employed ones tend to freelance. The way maintenance works is the work is actually done by a normal EASA company and they charge you their standard Part M fee (say £2500+V for a TB20) but instead of you getting a release to service at that point, they (or you) being in the IA, he checks everything, and he types up the RTS, and you pay him personally. So it costs you more than if you were G-reg :)

[mad_jock]

No I won't, I can't be bothered copying and pasting proudpilots posts to show the other side of the coin.

Its still not going to change the fact that they have set things up for you to be shafted.

[peterh337]

To get an IA, an A&P mechanic takes a short writtten test and thereafter does enough inspection related work to maintain it. It isn't rocket science.

It's harder over here. I only recall vague details I hear here, but the FAA appears unwilling to increase the number of IAs working outside the USA. Obviously you can get around that by doing it all in the USA.

Same with AMEs - it's very much dead man's shoes now.

[Pace]

Its still not going to change the fact that they have set things up for you to be shafted.

Mad Jock

You would withouit doubt love us N reg guys to be shafted as you put it!
Dont deny that because you would!
You may or may not be right as anyone posting here as none of us know.
All I can say is I took the problem to a Negotiator with the Bi lateral agreement and suggested I started the process of converting my licences.
Financially the ground exams are not a major expense item so it would have been an easy option to tell me to get on and do the exams.
Far from that his advice was to do NOTHING!
I presume you know more than those involved in EASA and those involved with the Bi Lateral agreement?
You may infact be correct but I would rather go with the advice I am given from someone better informed than you or I!
That in a few months may change! I may be back here saying that MJ was correct! but we are all pissing in the wind.
We either accept that EASA are total liars decievers and make people like Mr Weavers of this world look like the Pope or we believe there is an ounce of genuine intent in their published actions and intentions.


Pace

[maxred]

Wow..... I had no idea the UK GA licensing and certification system was so corrupt. have you thought about sharing your evidence with the UK CAA Peter?

Bose I did and the CAA did the square root of zero. Full evidence I might add. I would name and shame the CAA individuals but the Mods might run.

Totally happy and SAFE on N reg thank you
*

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't actually on a personal level.

But I do agree that residents should be subject to the local regulation.

I have sat on the side lines of other processes with feelings of unease and then bitten the bullet and covered my arse to be proved correct or at least partially correct, enough so that my investment was good.

In fact I made the call on this issue in 2001 when training it was obvious to me then with JAR that the noose was tightening and they were moving towards ending it. Its taken longer than I thought more than likely due to GWII and Afganistan and the bank crisis.

Why should EASA be any different to any other political body?

Getting angry with folk that don't tell you that its all going to be fine isn't going to help your plight.

[Thomascl605]

When EASA is basically rewriting the FAR's then I think it's everyone's problem. As a previous post stated the FAA don't have a problem with foreign reg aircraft based on their soil.

[mad_jock]

They are just the same as the FAA is political as well.

There is no way that the ATC in the US could be shafted as it has been without it being a political call.

As for the power thing yep they can dictate to EASA the way they want it to go. As per every other body be it finacial or any other type of body.

And to answer the worries of people about me line training.

We had a good week.

25 approaches 18 of which were RVR's and sub 500ft cloud base. 18 NPA in class G so full procedure. 20 hours block time.

The FO did pretty well, only had to take it 5 times with him having 165 hours TT not suprising. He attempted 20 approaches.

He is now in his bed (9pm local) and I am having a beer. A knackaring week but as usuall a very rewarding week for myself.

[Thomascl605]

Does anyone know AOPA's stance on the latest developments ?

[Thomascl605]

165 hours, now that's a low timer !

[Pace]

Does anyone know AOPA's stance on the latest developments ?

AOPA are very upbeat about EASA now moving with the FAA to look at Bi lateral FCL.
Firstly on the basis that there appears to be genuine intent to get such an agreement from both sides.
The stupidity of all this is at some time in the future worldwide licence standardisation and acceptance has to come.
It is the only practical solution for an industry which knows no boundaries.
With the emergence of China the industry is becoming more and more global and the need for ease of movement of pilots essential.
EASA had the opportunity of modelling part of the FAA system which like it or not is a system which is well tried and tested and works.
In that case a Bi Lateral would be relatively easy!
I see EASA as a missed opportunity based on regulatory self interest and protectionism and little more.

Maybe we are about to be shafted by EASA who as some suggest are only going through the motions to get a Bi lateral as a smokescreen for their real agenda.

If that is the case shame on them and who will celebrate that victory as we will all be losers JAA or FAA.
Especially with Europe again on a downward slide. Spain with massive unemployment levels, Italy crumbling EASA should have looked at easing pressure on the industry and hence costs not creating a burocratic minefield.

Pace

[alland2012]

Having read through this thread I am looking for a little advice, After absorbing the content of the thread in regard of the proposed EASA rule changes, I am a little worried regarding my current PPL training.

A brief outline is..
I am a UK citizen and reside here in the UK, as I am now semi retired I am a frequent visitor to Florida where we have a holiday home, this year I decided it was time to fullfill a long ambition I have had to obtain a PPL while I still have health and hopefully a few more years still ahead (I am 63yrs old, so don't have a great deal of time left on my side)
Partly due to cost and partly due to the agreeable weather in Florida, I decided that would be where I would do my PPL training.
For the last couple of months I have been training while in Florida, I now have some 50 hrs logged and have completed my solo time. I am due back in Florida for June & July, then I hope to complete my cross country and night requirement training and be in a position take my checkride to get my PPL.
After reading about the new rules that are coming into force, I am now worried that I will be required to re-train again here in the UK to be allowed to fly here.

My questions to those with a better understanding of the situation is...

1. Should I now consider cancelling the rest of my US training schedule and sign up with a flight school here in the UK to finish off my PPL training ?
2. Will my current US hours/training count towards completing my training here in the UK

Thank you, any opinons/advice would be most appreciated.
Allan.

[Thomascl605]

Just continue your flying in Florida Allan and scr*w them.

[peterh337]

Allan

You don't say whether the PPL you are doing is an FAA one or a JAR-FCL one, or indeed both at the same time.

There are ~ 6 schools in Florida which can do the JAR one, or the combined one.

Currently you can fly a G-reg plane worldwide VFR on an FAA (or any other ICAO non-JAR) PPL. After April 2014 (or is it April 2015?) this automatic validation will cease - except for "non EASA" (loosely this means Permit/homebuilt types) aircraft on which it will continue indefinitely.

If your PPL is a JAR one then that will be good under EASA.

If your PPL is an FAA one only then you should consider moving to one of the JAR-capable schools and finish off there and knock off both sets of papers at the same time. The FAA one will entitle you to fly any N-reg plane anywhere in the world, and the JAR one will convert to an EASA one which will entitle you to fly any EASA-reg plane anywhere in the world.

Running both PPLs has the downside of needing both medicals but there are multiple AMEs in the UK which can do both in one go. I pay something like £180 I think for both Class 1s done in one go. You won't need Class 1s; you will need a UK CAA Class 2 and an FAA Class 3.

[Thomascl605]

Thanks for that Pace. It would be good to have a further update from a representative of AOPA on this forum. Perhaps if they are reading they might like to offer some hope if there is any, or advice for the many pilots affected.

[Pace]

Thomas its not worth getting a further update till after June when we should have a better indication of what sort of bi lateral FCL we may expect.
I will be very surprised if there is none at all but equally surprised if its a give us yours here is ours scenario.
I would expect something on type rated ATPs but nothing which would allow an EASA training PPL to sidestep the system!
Anthing inbetween who knows.

Pace

[peterh337]

There is already a straight conversion for an ATP with 2000+hrs on Part 25 aircraft...

[Pace]

There is already a straight conversion for an ATP with 2000+hrs on Part 25 aircraft...

Peter

I am aware of that:) Hence why it would be easy to make that applicable to other type rated ATPs without messing up the EASA training system.

Pace

[mad_jock]

But that would then miss out the multicrew requirement for the ATPL if they missed out the JAR25 bit. So I don't think it will be on the cards.

ATP to CPL type/IR might be a possibility though with ATPL theory needed if you want to upgrade it to ATPL.

[alland2012]

Thanks peterh337, the PPL training I am currently doing is the only for the FAA rating.
After giving it some more thought and listening to advice, I have decided that as I am so close to completing my training, I will continue with the FAA PPL at my current Florida flight school, then do the JAR rating later at one of the JAR qualified flight schools.

[mad_jock]

As long as you only want to do day VFR you might not need to bother. In fact in some ways you will need less if your flying a G reg than a N reg in the UK.

[Pace]

Mad Jock

There should be an exam element as they are different airspaces but there can be no sensible argument as to why an FAA ATP flying as a Captain on a jet already in Europe should have to sit 14 exams full of loads of totally irrelevant material.
Anyway give it a few months and I may have to follow that stupid route??? But then maybe not!

Pace

[peterh337]

As long as you only want to do day VFR you might not need to bother. In fact in some ways you will need less if your flying a G reg than a N reg in the UK.

Can you explain that?

[mad_jock]

Sorry Peter I might have it wrong.

But I though the original day VFR for ICAO holders was going to stand.

But then if you were in a N reg you would need both tickets.

We shall see what happens Pace.

[VMC-on-top]

Question for Peter, Bose, Pace, 421, MJ - and anyone else!

If you were flying privately only in Europe, had an IMCR and you were considering doing an IR, in light of what is going on, would you go FAA , or JAR / EASA now?

[mm_flynn]

Sorry Peter I might have it wrong.

But I though the original day VFR for ICAO holders was going to stand.

But then if you were in a N reg you would need both tickets.

We shall see what happens Pace.
I don't thinks so. The CAA rules such as that referenced above are no longer valid legislation with respect to non-Annex II aircraft. The new rules seem very clear that a pilot with a foreign licence can, over their lifetime, receive only a single validation for 1 year. So even a properly resident US pilot visiting Europe for one week in May 2012 and one week in June 2013 can fly a local aircraft on a validation on only one of those visits.

[mm_flynn]

Question for Peter, Bose, Pace, 421, MJ - and anyone else!

If you were flying privately only in Europe, had an IMCR and you were considering doing an IR, in light of what is going on, would you go FAA , or JAR / EASA now?
The key question is, 'Do you own, have ready access to, or intend to purchase from the US a N-reg aircraft?'
If the answer is 'No', then I would suggest holding the decision for a few months to suss the lay of the land.

If the answer with regard to N-Reg aircraft is 'Yes', then it is more complicated and depends on when you want to achieve the rating and a number of decisions/actions that will be taken over the course of this year. The straight EASA route is the clear one - all the rest are dependant on decisions/implementations that are not yet defined.

[mad_jock]

The only way you can be bullet proof is by getting your local license.

As flynn says there are some pretty major discussions to be had in the not so distant future. But even if it does come through, fast forward a few years and they will have another shot at stopping it if the N reg fleet keeps increasing.

If you do the ATPL's for the IR you might as well knock the CPL off as well if you own your own machine. Your insurance premiums may drop once you have it and cover the additional in a few years. Also takes shifting mates planes out of a grey area into a legal one if doing it for free.

If you want a FAA ticket at a later date you can either get a stand alone or do the FAA IR exam and flight test. Other way around and its a pain in the rear.

[peterh337]

Only a madman would do the JAA CPL/IR for private flying only. The extra 7 exams are a lot of work. It is more than 7 extra exams too because the 7 PPL/IR exams are (in the UK) less than a subset of the 14.

As regards the Q re strategy, I recommend that anybody in that position has a browse of my long writeup (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/index.html) especially the notes near the end of it. Much depends on how much you value international IFR, whether you have a plane which can take advantage of it and do high altitude trips like this (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/edny3/index.html), and how much you want it now relative to your present age. I've had that since 2006 and found it priceless and, being 55, one doesn't have unlimited time to enjoy life. One can go everywhere in Europe "VFR" but quite a bit of it will be in IMC and more to the point not as safe as it could be because much ATC will not let you into CAS so you end up pushed into IMC and collecting ice instead of flying above it as you can with the IR. This is a conversation I've had with individuals countless times and only the individual can answer it for himself. Some of them will obviously (to me) never do an IR (any IR) because their lives are self evidently too busy running their work or their packed social life - even if they have the money to fly enough to stay current and have access to a suitable plane. Some of those people could have done an FAA IR because that one is easier to fit around a busy life because it has just one exam whose content is mostly relevant to aviation and it can be done wholly with freelance instructors, but then you get stuffed (in Europe) over the checkride..... I did the FAA IR because my lady was away for 4 weeks and I could then spend 2 weeks living out of a sh*thole in Arizona. In 2011 I did the JAA IR purely as an insurance policy against the EASA worst case scenario because I had just finished one big project and wanted something to get stuck into for a few months. The JAA IR I have is not even valid to fly my own plane! But I was not going to do it if it meant living for weeks out of some sh*thole near an FTO so I bent over backwards to do it at my local airport. I was fortunate to bump into some extremely helpful individuals who made it all possible to do it in my own plane.

If you have lots of time and no life then the answer is obvious: do an FAA CPL/IR (like I have) and do a JAA CPL/IR, all ME of course, and then you have gold plated papers which entitle you to the full gold braided Col Gaddafi uniform from Transair :) And Bob Pooley will be delighted to sell you one of his £800 swords to wear with it.

[mad_jock]

The theory isn't that bad.

They like to make a big fuss about it but if you have a bit of technical background it really isn't an issue. There is nothing above age 16 school level stuff in it.

[peterh337]

One-liners are a waste of time posting.

[Pace]

Why do I think there will be a Bi lateral agreement of some sort?
We have to look at the route that has taken us to where we are now!
EASA has always stated that the present legislation re third country licences is not their chosen route or one they desire.
When the legislation went through the EU parliament it faced stiff opposition from a number of Key MEPs.
EASA could not in law remove part!
The whole had to be voted through or none.
Some sort of deal was made behind closed doors to persuade the MEPs who opposed what had been suggested for third country licence holders in Europe to vote the whole through.
EASA than changed the date to 2014 for the SOLE purpose of adding FCL to the recently signed up BI Lateral.
From thinking that this was all a CON to pretend to get a Bi Lateral and effectively also cheat the MEPs who were opposed but then let the legislation through I now feel that EASA is genuine in their intent.
My concern is that both systems are too far apart especially on the ground school structure to get an OVERALL agreement which would not damage the EASA training structure.
My feeling is there will be movement on ATPs and movement on trimming of other areas.
As to the question re the basic PPL with an IMCR rating if I was in that position I would get the EIR on top of my IMCR which would literally give me the benefits of an IR in the UK and an on top ability elsewhere.
Most PPLs spend their time in the UK or brief forays into France anyway.
BTW I am not only an FAA ATP but also hold JAA PPL IMCR Multi .
Should the whole lot go tits up and because of the behind closed door agreements with opposed MEPs I think EASA would be under a lot of moral pressure to make further gestures to those effected.

Pace

[Thomascl605]

I sincerely hope they sort something out in June as I won't be taking 14 exams to fly the same non EU reg aircraft, the said 14 exams not forming any part of FAA training or the FAR's.

The 14 exams as MJ states may be passable but only with full time study over a period of months which for me and others would lead to job loss. There is also the moral duty of EASA not to put current rated jet pilots through the multi guess, cr*ppy 99% non relevant exams (it's not even the licensing authority of the aircraft reg, why should they)

Some of you may crumble through fear, desperation or whatever and sit the cr*ppy multi guess system and empty your bank account in the process, good luck to you.

However, I will use any means I can as a point of principle to avoid it. You may have noticed on another forum on pprune that many pilots with national CAA licences are being told they will have to sit the exams too. They are understandably furious and I doubt they will sit the exams either.

[mad_jock]

The 14 exams as MJ states may be passable but only with full time study over a period of months

That is utter rubbish.

I did them over 4 months while doing 10-12 hour shifts in my day job, distance learning. And the only experence I had was a PPL and an engineering back ground which help in the AGK but thats about it. With experence they will be an awful lot easier.

And far from using only one % of them I have used well over 50% so far and the longer I keep flying and the more areas of the world I operate into the more of it I use.

However, I will use any means I can as a point of principle to avoid it.

See this is the issue now a stuborness by both sides which is only going to end in tears. It really doesn't matter how easy they are you won't do them will you. And then what are you going to do? Spend more money than it would cost you to do the exams in legal fees which will more than likely fail especially if your self employed anyway.

[Thomascl605]

We shall just have to disagree then. I don't believe that it's utter rubbish as you put it.

Your 10-12 hours shift wasn't flying though, was it. More than likely home every night with weekends off, a bit easier to study then, no ?

Maybe you want us all to become clones of the sacred 14 exams system. I see the students of them at my local flight school. Many think they're a cut above the rest, wearing their gold two bars (or more) as they stride off to fly their 152. Thousands wasted on an archaic system that would be better for everyone if binned and stated from scratch. Those thousands wasted on the multi guess exams would be better invested in actual flight training. Maybe then they would graduate with more than 170 hours, and might not require so much time to bring up to scratch in the right hand seat of your J-41.

But I'll leave you to chew that over.

[peterh337]

The exam workload depends on how you do them.

I can only refer you to my 20k word writeup :E I know almost nobody has read it because it is so totally boring (I can hear a well known "forum personality" rolling over now :E ) but it does have useful stuff in it on how to cut through this crap.

In a nutshell, what you have to do is avoid the traditional ground school FTO route, because they load you up with about 5000 pages of crap in a dozen ring binders, and you have to study this crap to be signed off as good enough to sit the CAA exams at Gatwick.

But if you go to CATS then the homework is (I am advised) "aligned pretty well" with their online QB which you have to hammer anyway, to pass. So you just do that.

I didn't use CATS because I didn't discover this route until too late and I wasted a lot of time. In the end I did Met and Air Law purely by doing 37 mock exams in each :) These take about 30 mins each so about 40 hours' revision for these two very unpleasant subjects. Navigation is worth booking a classroom (or some other study) session on because while the stuff is banally trivial (and wrong; useless for flying in Europe) it helps to know how you are supposed to do it.

The 14 exams could take 6 months of evenings if you spread it out, as a busy working person would, but it can be done a lot quicker. I did under 50% of it (PPL/IR conversion (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/)) and the total time spent was a couple of weeks. It is depressing and distasteful for a pilot with a life who does real flying to have to learn such near-total crap for no good reason other than the decree by the bent gravy train riders in Brussels/Cologne but if one gets stuck in, it doesn't take too long. I would do the 14 exams in four sittings, starting with the hardest ones.

Those thousands wasted on the multi guess exams would be better invested in actual flight training

Well, yes, of course, this system turns out pilots who cannot fly. They tend to pick up the essential skills later, except for some (AF447, etc...).

[mad_jock]

Nah flying the auld heap just now so its no auto pilot and fancy tellys.

Its usually 40 sectors which is the min required by the ops manual. If you get a 1000 hour GA instructor type they could get through in 25-30 sectors mainly becuase there PNF stuff is alot more organised and they don't struggle with the RT as much. And you don't have to teach them how to trim an aircraft properly (which seems to be universally ****e which ever method of training they have come through, including alledged experenced TP pilots with time on kingairs etc). Its much more of a struggle taking someone back to steam instruments and no AP from telly's and AP and radar vectored ILS's everytime.

I was working a a IT service engineer so no not home every night and working at weekends because thats when we could have the servers down and run scripts. Used to read the books at work while waiting for micro****e to sort its life out hitting ok every 15 mins.

Flying is much more friendly to distance learning. In fact I am doing an OU degree while sitting around in Airports.

And its hardly thousands its about 15 hours in a C152 to be honest or 7 hours in a twin doing instrument approaches.

to learn such near-total crap for no good reason other than the decree by the bent gravy train riders in Brussels/Cologne

Go for it get the knife stuck into them again. Nail another nail into the coffin and make the faceless civil servants that are driving this even more determind that come hell or high water that everyone will have to do the exams.

[peterh337]

EASA has published a table of countries and their derogations here (http://easa.europa.eu/approvals-and-standardisation/derogations-to-regulations.php).

It is not fully up to date; for example Netherlands has gone for the full 2 years but haven't told EASA yet :)

[Pace]

With the imminent financial meltdown of Europe I dont suppose there will be much cash flying around to enforce any of this rubbish!

Pace

[peterh337]

It gets better...

The UK CAA has just published its proposed ANO amendments (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1350&pagetype=90&pageid=12195).

One can't copy/paste from that stupid PDF but look up 61 (1) (a). (page 4/5 of the PDF).

They are now hanging the anti N-reg stuff on both the residence of the pilot and the residence of the operator.

Nasty........... How can this comply with EASA FCL ?

It's either deliberate or it's a c0ckup. The latter would be amazing, given how much publicity this Brussels garbage has received.

[mad_jock]

I always thought it was going on both. Its the faceless civil servants your up against so it will be on purpose.

It won't really matter if the EU goes tits up it will all be through the individual parliments. So even if all falls over at the end it will still be on everyones books. And the fall out will mean that it will be years until they have chamber time to sort any of it out.

Won't cost hardly anything to enforce it will just use the current inspectors. You have to submit you passport numbers anyway so any EU passports come in on an outside reg and its can I see your license please.

Its always been their goal for residents to have local licenses to be able to fly anything in their own countries. And make it almost impossible for you to operate anything other than the local reg if its perm based there, how ever you fiddle the paper work so it appears that its operated from somewhere else.

I must admit I did wonder why everyone was thinking that basing an aircraft in IOM or JER was going to solve anything with the pilots.

[bookworm]

The UK CAA has just published its proposed ANO amendments.

The CAA hasn't "just published" these. The CRD was published in October 2011. The CRD changes the proposed text for Art 61.

[Pace]

BookWorm

As you are more conversant with these things!!! does that mean that an aircraft which is not European operated but uses a pilot who is EU resident that now the pilot has to hold equivalent EASA licences regardless of whether the operator is EU based or not?
So it is not based on the Operator but on the pilot as well?
Is there a definition for resident? Someone here for 3 days is resident by definition?
Seems if they are tightening the small print that EASA had no intentions of a Bi Lateral and it is indeed a smokescreen!
That whatever was suggested to the MEPs who opposed this going into law were also cheated to vote it all through?

Anyway if true it will have made Mad Jocks day!

Pace

[stuclark]

PACE, make some space in your PMs!
Cheers,

[BillieBob]

They were hanging the anti N-reg stuff on both the residence of the pilot and the residence of the operator but, clearly in response to comments received, Article 61 has now been re-worded, albeit in the most obtuse manner possible. It now allows for the pilot of an EASA aircraft whose operator is resident or established outside the EU to hold either an EASA licence or a licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or in the State of the operator, which complies with Article 4.1(c) of the Basic Regulation.

[mad_jock]

Its made my day that the light is actually dawning for you Pace what your up against. Not the fact you are getting shafted.

The residency thing is a bit of a bitch to be honest. Different countrys have different rules.

Some have 183 days in country a year.

Or the UK currently has that and also more than 90 days a year averaged over three years. So if you do 184 your instantly a resident but if you say do 80 in the first year 80 in the second and 115 in the third you then become resident from the first year. What screws things up is you can be deemed to be resident for tax purposes but not resident depending on various factors.

Now if they will have a EU residency ie 183 days total within the EU area I don't know. BUt if they do its going to be a whole heap of hassel having to prove your location for basically every single day of the year.

And Peter if you print it using a PDF printer then that removes all the crap that they insist on attaching to there PDF's.

[peterh337]

I think this wording would be a change in the regs which the UK is not entitled to make.

It would also be stupid because how are you doing to define "residence"?

This would be piling one piece of "pub" lawmaking from the CAA onto another piece of "pub" lawmaking from EASA which EASA sneaked past a Brussels Transport Committee made up mostly of ignorant brown-nosing small-country MEPs, with the knowledgeable ones having been duped in a separate private audience by the promise of an imminent treaty with the USA.

However I am pleased to see MJ is on the case... 23 minutes after my post is not bad going. Business a bit slack, perhaps? The bitterness is impressive :ok: If it were not for the background knowledge I would believe you are my ex wife :E

BillieBob

I must be mis-reading something. Could you explain where the new text is?

It now allows for the pilot of an EASA aircraft whose operator is resident or established outside the EU to hold either an EASA licence or a licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or in the State of the operator, which complies with Article 4.1(c) of the Basic Regulation.

The funny thing is that if the bit I put in italics above were to be used, it would not comply with FAR 61.3, for example :E

[mad_jock]

Nah playing skyrim was 30mins before I got fed up with getting my backside kicked by a giant earwig on steriods.

That means that if your aircraft is based outside the EU the locals can fly it. The airlines will have got that in there so they can dry lease out aircraft during winter. It also allows the likes of flybe to take a few Q400's outside the EU and then train local crews up for a local AOC while they wait for there own to turn up.

There is absolutely no bitterness at all. Just a slightly bemused feeling that two obviously intelligent people can't see a well planned sequence of events falling into place. The fact that I understand and agree with the policy is neither here nor there.

[BillieBob]

Peter, the proposed revised text is in the 'Action' column of the CRD and reads as follows:

Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of EASA aircraft or non-EASA aircraft referred to in paragraphs (a)(ii), (d) or (h) of Annex II of the Basic EASA Regulation that is flying for the purpose of a commercial air transport flight and in either case registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom

61A A person must not act as a member of the flight crew which must by or under the EASA Aircrew Regulation be carried in -

(a) an EASA aircraft which is registered in a country other than the United Kingdom; or

(b) a non-EASA aircraft that is referred to in paragraphs (a)(ii), (d) or (h) of Annex II of the Basic EASA Regulation that is flying for the purpose of a commercial transport flight and which is registered in a country other than the United Kingdom, unless paragraphs 2 or 3 apply

(2) This paragraph applies if the operator of the aircraft is not resident or established in the European Union, and the person acting as a member of the flight crew is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator.

(3) This paragraph applies if the person is the holder of an appropriate licence converted, granted or rendered valid under the EASA Aircrew Regulation.

Are you perhaps reading the original NPA instead of the CRD?

[S-Works]

There is absolutely no bitterness at all. Just a slightly bemused feeling that two obviously intelligent people can't see a well planned sequence of events falling into place. The fact that I understand and agree with the policy is neither here nor there.

A well planned series of events that has been planned for years. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

[peterh337]

Are you perhaps reading the original NPA instead of the CRD?

Yes, I was :ouch: Many thanks.

The CRD is here (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2131/20111021%20Comment%20Response%20Document%20Flight%20Crew%20L icensing.pdf).

So in essence this appears to be a false alarm.

However I must confess I cannot get my head around the new ANO wording, especially given its lack of paragraph identing due to being squeezed into the narrow column.

[mad_jock]

Page 8 when you get down to the underlined bit in the second colume is the bit that means if you a resident you need a local ticket or if the operator is EU based you also need a local ticket where ever you personally are residing. ie no commuting in from Jersey if the plane is based in Biggin. Or for that matter commuting from Biggin into Jersey. Aircraft based in Jersey and pilot living in Jersey you are fine.

[Thomascl605]

I think MJ that you will find that this transition will not be as legally watertight for the thickies in Brussels. You can 'wash your cosh' and dream of your smarmy victory if you wish, ultimately good legal sense will prevail. We will continue to fly, it's as simple as that. Get used to it and enjoy sharing the sky with non European licenced pilots.

[Pace]

MadJock

But of course all this is means nothing as the whole purpose of all this is for EASA to work night and day to get a Bi Lateral?

The reason they changed dates to 2014?

The reason they persuaded 5 crucial MEPs to allow the whole bunch of rubbish through in the first place with promises they would keep.

Weaver the 24 year old who commanded so many hits on the Weaver thread all of a sudden seems a saint compared to the cheats and crooks in the so called EASA .

Addendum

MadJock

When this whole mess was shoved through the European Parliament the whole had to be passed not bits removed.
There were five MEPs who were totally opposed to what EASA wanted to do with N reg.
These MEPs were crucial and private deals and assurances were made behind closed doors to get the bill proposed (I do know a little more than I let on)
How do you think these MEPs will feel if they come away empty handed and feeling they have been ripped off and cheated?
Do you think EASA will risk a court case? or bring in allowances if faced with that option?
As they say it aint over till the Fat Lady Sings and she aint even in sight yet.
Wait till after june and remember the only reason for the 2014 delay!

Pace

[mad_jock]

Thats based on what Thomas?

What a load of pilots would like to think or professional legal advice?

Where did you get your legal advice from?

What laws are they breaking?

Whats your reasoning that the laws have been broken?

Pace we shall see what happens in June but I agree with Bose you have to be naive to think that something won't come up to put a spanner in the works.

[Pace]

What laws are they breaking?

MadfJock

EU employment laws and age discrimination laws there is little doubt on that.
That is a last resort move which will happen if common sense does not prevail before.
The minute EASA renegade on their promises and they are promises then the legal approach will start.
There are too many who will be effected not just pilots in the N reg industry in Europe so do not be too smug MJ
Remember too that these people are victims, they are people who have been totally legally involved in N reg in Europe for decades so there are rights of established practice too.
EASA will only act if they have to! Why should for example a 58 year old working ATP have to finance gaining a set of licences which have no real relevance to the aircraft he is flying? Is it worth it for the few years left in his career?
Why should he loose his job because he cannot take 6 months off to study a mass of irrelevant material and is that all worth it for the 5 odd years still to run in his career? I add through no fault of his own. Who will pay?

Pace

[Thomascl605]

Well MJ, some laws they are breaking have already been mentioned, some not. I would also have thought that there is some kind of case for laws of negligence in employment due EASA. It's wont quite end up to be the prize triple knuckle shuffle for you that you believe.

[peterh337]

Can anybody work out whether the derogation is available to paid pilots flying for the aircraft owner?

The question is more subtle than it may at first appear, because such ops do not breach the "aerial work in a FRA" ANO article and are thus effectively private flights. As this letter (http://www.zen74158.zen.co.uk/aviation/FOIA/3.pdf) (obtained under FOIA in 2005) shows, it was realised by the CAA that the then Article 115 breached ICAO on these ops as it sought to force them to obtain a DfT permission for each flight, which was clearly not intended.

[bookworm]

Can anybody work out whether the derogation is available to paid pilots flying for the aircraft owner?

As you illustrate, the UK CAA has historically been somewhat out on a limb as regards the status of flights where the owner pays a pilot. While the lack of definition of "operate" in the EASA Basic Regulation is frustrating because it makes it difficult to work out who the "operator" is, I don't believe that there is any intention that such flights fall under the heading of "commercial", thus are what we would consider to be "private" flights.

[peterh337]

That would be my view too, FWIW, because just about every "commercial" activity implied by EASA needs an AOC.

Again I am suprised at the poor language used in these regs. It makes them unenforceable (until some case law is accumulated, and the CAA tries hard to avoid creating precedents, by settling cases on the steps of the court) and will make any higher-end aircraft owner seek some assurance from his insurer. The low-end owners won't get a ruling because they aren't big enough. The other day I spoke to the top man at a top insurer and he said in these circumstances (where not even the CAA can explain what it means) they would pay out.

[englishal]

Residence and passport numbers are not the same thing. I am confident I could prove to a French official that I am not an EU resident, despite having a UK passport..... Unenforceable.

[mad_jock]

So you boys must be praying the EU hangs together then because all this stuff is now on the statute books of individual countries. If the european court goes you will have to fight in each and every country to get it changed.

And as you say we shall see what happens.

I just can't see how that this case differ's to any other bit of regulation change in respect to working requirements and there have been numerous changes which have put folk in exactly the same position over the last 15 years in respect to EU law.

Also as well if you are self employed alot of the EU employment laws don't apply to you. A 58 year old shouldn't have to finance it, his employer should, which will be their argument. But I am self employed you will say and the reply will be "have a word with yourself then".