Should EASA be allowed to monopolise licencing in Europe?

[4x4]

It was with a degree of shock that I read about the new rulings being ratified by some faceless wonders on Brussels....there has been rumours of somewthing like this happening for years, but now some Back room boys have finally got it all together, and are enforcing this legislation upon us. I am quite sure that many of us with JAA/EASA licences have in some way looked down from our lofty positions, having passed our ATP exams.....at the seemingly inferior FAA equivalent....and yes, flying in Europe does have its challenges, so a European Licence may be deemed necessary???....I think that the USA...or many other parts of the World have similar, or even more challenging weather and traffic conditions to us in Little old Europe....but it seems that in Brussels....they think otherwise.....and I, and many others, are about to become more Victims to this vast Socio / political experiment that is called the European Union.

I have been flying for 30 years, and have held a CAA ATPL and an FAA ATPL, currently have 9000 hours on type of the Corporate Jet that I fly. Many Corporate Jets are operated on the US "November" register, or on various smaller Registered Authorities for primarily Tax reasons of the owners.....so to fly these aircraft, we have to comply to this requirement. Over the years I have unfortunately not kept up with my European Licences, due to cost and availability of Sim instructors. Also a minor Health issue, now renders me unable to hold a JAA Class 1 Medical Cetificate, but I have no problem meeting the requirements of the FAA Class 1......now, thanks to some chinless wonders in the European Parliament, I now have two years to end my Career in Aviation, at the age of 50. The European Union is not even a signatory to ICAO regulations.....presumably, because it is not actually a Ratified State.....or am I missing something.....has the United States of Europe been born and I missed it????

Unless I now resign from my position, (held for 15 years) and seek a job elsewhere in the World, with other countries that are ICAO signatories, I will be facing a very bleak future indeed. Kids about to start University, and No Flight Crew Licence is not a place I had worked so hard to achieve...

Can anyone tell me just who, when, why and what, has allowed the so called European Aviation Safety Agency, to start controlling peoples livelihoods, without any form of discussion, no grounding on any element of safety issues, just a European, self satisfied, bureacratically driven, unilateral sense of delusionary grandeur.....

I am hoping that not only can I hear from other Flight Crew in the same position, but also from all Flightcrew, who will support their fellow Pilots, against this tyrannical decision from the EU.
4x4 is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

[Cathar]

Can anyone tell me just who, when, why and what, has allowed the so called European Aviation Safety Agency, to start controlling peoples livelihoods, without any form of discussion, no grounding on any element of safety issues, just a European, self satisfied, bureacratically driven, unilateral sense of delusionary grandeur.....


The simple answer to who, when, why and what is:

Who: The elected governments of the Member States of the European Union through the Council of Ministers and the Members of the European Parliament who are directly elected by the citizens of the Member States.

When: 20 February 2008

Why: the principal stated objective is to obtain and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe.

What: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:079:0001:0049:EN:PDF) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency.

While the EU is not a contracting state to the Chicago Convention all of its Member States are. It is not contrary to the Convention for contracting state to form regional groupings with common aviation legisaltion/requirement. Indeed I believe that it is something that ICAO encourage.

[4x4]

Well Cathar, I hope they pay YOU very well, as PR co-ordinator for EASA.....suggest that you take a bit of a look around other forums in PPRUNE...you may find that apart from derision at this new regulation...there are an awful lot of very intelligent people who, are prepared to say that this decision is not only unnecessary, but may well be unlawful on grounds of being discriminatory, and on grounds of current employment laws.....they want to make me unemployed....I will be seeing them in the European Court of Human Rights...

[cldrvr]

EASA has every right to regulate the aviation industry in Europe. I don't see anything wrong banning non EU licensed pilots from operating within the EU, you couldn't get away with it driving a car so why should you flying an airplane.

This is nothing new and has been in the making for years. You are about 5 years too late to complain about it, and have long missed the consultation period for your comments, no need to bolt the stable door now the horse is long gone.

Why don't you try to operate a G-reg in the US for a few years with UK crew and see how long you will get away with that one before the FAA comes knocking on your door.

Count your blessings for being able to operate by means of a loophole for so long. This is long overdue.

[Cathar]

4x4 I simply answered your question factually. I was not expressing an opinion or pushing a pro EASA view, rather I was trying to show that this is not "new rulings being ratified by some faceless wonders on Brussels" or "Back room boys have finally got it all together, and are enforcing this legislation upon us". The legislation, whatever we might think about it, has gone through the full democratic process and has been endorsed by our elected representatives.

[4x4]

I think you will find that possessing an International drivers licence, will allow you to drive pretty much anywhere you want....Europe and the US included...no Unilateral ban there....

There are a great number of Corporate Jets, operating in and out of the US, and many other countries beside....G-Reg or otherwise....and do not require Dual Licencing.....why has Europe taken this stance?....Safety Grounds?....I think that can be discounted straight away from a vast statistical study.

As for being involved in the consultative period.....I can only suggest that you try to write to your own MEP.....try Housing Tax, or obtaining a Taxidermy Certificate.....and you will see exactly how "Involved"....you will feel in this Great European Dream we are all supposedly entranced in.....

Please do not misunderstand my point of view...the Aircraft I fly is only based for a short period of the year in Europe.....so are we suggesting that for three months of the year we employ EASA Crew....and the other Nine months ICAO Crew....let us hope that this does not become an epidemic elsewhere....or as a backlash against Europe....as many Ex-pat European Pilots will be suffering for this.....If this was a widespread and dangerous situation, then I can see all grounds for it....but that is just not the case.

[cldrvr]

Yes, if you base your N-reg in the EU, then you will have to have EU licenses and abide by EU regulations. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why should you be allowed to circumvent the EU law by buying an N-reg airplane and basing it here. IF the owner is EU resident then even the aircraft will have to be EU registered or else it can't operate in the EU. I still don't see your point, you were lucky thus far operating via a loophole, that loophole is now closed, you base in the EU, you follow the EU rules, don't like it? Take your airplane somewhere else.

About time the EU stands up to dodgy tax and operator loopholes used by EU companies buying foreign registered and operated aircraft and by non EU operators basing non-EU airplanes in the EU.

I can see exactly where the EU is coming from, they want to regulate the aircraft based and operated within the EU and are no longer tolerating non EU registered aircraft based within its borders, what is wrong with that?

A UK resident can only operate in the UK on an international drivers license for 12 months, why should he be able to fly on a non EU flying license with no restrictions?

The EU wants to make sure they can enforce flying licenses and take any necessary actions against EU based operators and pilots, what is wrong with that? Why should you be exempt from EU regulations while you operate here as a based operator?

Up until now you guys have operated outside the rules and regulations here and I am glad the EU is putting a stop to that. Why shouldn't they, they are more then entitled to. They are closing a much abused loophole, about time. I am not alone in this opinion, most EU operators share this point of view and can't wait to end the numerous N-reg operators flying here without any oversight.

[cldrvr]

As to your question posted in your first post:

Should EASA be allowed to monopolise International licencing in Europe

The FAA themselves in 91.703 state that US registered aircraft operated in foreign countries shall adhere to local regulations.

This is how it is going to be, EASA sets the rules, ICAO and the FAA have no issue with that.

[4x4]

Well lets hope that when you take your Challenger over to the States, they don't make you fly on an FAA licence.....hey. perhaps we could do a deal....you do the European bits, and I will do the ICAO bits...where they decide they don't want European Aircraft and Crews operating....stranger things have happened!!!!.....

You seem to have a gripe about Tax Dodging companies....if not...then as the Aircraft that I fly....and all the visitors that arrive in LHR and LGW every day which fly to standards and regulations that are accepted worldwide....you therefore must be intoning that unless you have an EASA licence...then you are Crap in the eyes of the European Authorities......my post was not about, Tax dodging companies or elicit company dealings....there is actually no particular advantage apart from VAT.......so are you saying that FAA Pilots are probably bigger miscreants....and therefore EASA wants a more accessible way to punish them?......

As one Brit Pilot to another....when you see your own National Aviation Authority being disassembled, and given little or no power, and when it is fairly impossible to make any impact upon the EU system as an individual....then it is a sad day when you realise that you are living in an Authoritarian Socialist State, where we now have little or no self determination.....I for one, find this Orwellian state of being....very sad.

[cldrvr]

cjboy, as to cars, you cannot drive a foreign car in the UK unlimited:

Visitors coming to the UK that don’t intend living here can usually use a vehicle displaying foreign (non-UK) number plates for up to six months in a 12 month period. This can be one single or several shorter visits, adding up to a six month period. During this time the vehicle can travel displaying the non-UK plates but only provided the vehicle is still fully registered and tax paid, in the country it came from (the driver’s home country).
For anyone wishing to stay in the UK for longer than a six month period, their vehicle will normally need to be registered and taxed at Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). Driving in the UK with non-UK number plates : Directgov - Motoring (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ImportingAndExportingAVehicle/DG_10014623)

So there is no difference between flying a foreign aircraft or driving a foreign car. That's why I used the analogy.

Now back to flying. 4x4, I agree with you, I would have rather continued to deal with the CAA, however we joined the EU and part of that was EASA.

I don't see anything wrong with the US imposing similar rules regarding foreign aircraft operated within their territory.

EASA only wants a way to enforce each and every pilot and operator based in the EU. It is not saying that the FAA pilots/operators are less safe, it is just saying that each and every citizen/operator should fall under the same regulations and loopholes that allow them to skirt EU regs need to be closed.

The EU is very clear in its reasoning for the licensing requirement:

A high and uniform level of protection of the European
citizen should at all times be ensured in civil aviation, by
the adoption of common safety rules and by measures
ensuring that products, persons and organisations in the
Community comply with such rules

In addition, third-country aircraft operated into, within or
out of the territory where the Treaty applies should be
subject to appropriate oversight at Community level


It is at no point saying anything about the difference, if any, in safety, it is just stating that if you reside here, or base your aircraft here, you should adhere to the local regs.

[Thomascl605]

Hard to see how EASA can enforce this. Considering many pilots have flown non eu reg aircraft for years based in Europe, then the precedent has been set. I wouldn't worry about this, if EASA do try to somehow enforce this then a huge lawsuit will be hitting them where it hurts.

It's a bit like the emissions trading cr*p, EASA will probably fold within the next couple of years. Frankly, if they don't then I won't particularly wish to fly in Europe any more. It's hard enough already with all of you EASA bum chums !

[pistulaza]

I can't Understand witch is the problem, if the plane is N registered must be owned by an American Entity, is this enough to consider it "Based" in USA?
:hmm:

[NuName]

Being as a pilot is required to operate within the regulations of the airspace he is operating in, the argument that EASA will provide oversight where it previously did not exist is rubish. All authorities have always had the facility to require the state of registry of an aircraft to take action against any infringements by any foreign licenced pilot flying a foreign registered aircraft to mutual satisfaction. The only reason I can come up with as to why this is happening, is to apply protectionism to flight training organisations who charge enormous amounts to operate in the expensive European theatre and have to apply the nonsensical written exams to poor unfortunate pilots who could otherwise go to the USA and get it done quicker and cheaper with the same safety result. Oh! hang on a minute, I didn't come up with that did I, its a proven fact. Standing by for incoming :\

[Thomascl605]

Perhaps some pro EASA tool can provide exact details as to how this will be enforced, I think it's highly unlikely to happen. If it does then it's a sad reflection of the Orwell state that we live in. I have really enjoyed my long, accident free career flying in Europe on non eu licences. With the huge increase of employing a Pilot with a European licence (sim cost etc) I doubt all of you EASA bottom feeders will enjoy such good terms and conditions.

[cldrvr]

Enforcement is fairly straightforward, if you are an EU national, you will need EASA licences if you operate an N-reg. simple rampchecking/ database checking can reinforce that. if you keep your N-reg in the EU for longer then a given amount of time you need to register it in the EU, again simple database/flightplan checking can reinforce that one.

You FAA guys can keep your head in the sand all you want and scream as loud as you can from the rooftops, this has been in the making for 5 years and it is not going away.

I am a big fan of this proposal, it will level the playing field, get rid of N-reg aircraft and will actually improve pay and conditions for EU licensed pilots as the option of cheaper N-reg crew and aircraft is regulated out of the market place. This proposal can only be good for the future of aviation in Europe.

Unemployed JAR/EASA licensed pilots will have a greater source of employment flying remaining N-reg aircraft once they get their FAA validation on their next simcheck. N-reg aircraft moving over to the M-reg and other EASA registers will be flown by JAR/EASA licensed pilots getting M-reg vailidation. (not sure what they are going to do with M-reg FAA validated pilots once this goes into effect)

This will be a boom for EASA maintenance providers/ avionics shops/ training providers/ aviation service companies etc. Most N-reg owners are not going to stop flying, they will have to abide by the new rules, this can only be good for aviation in Europe.

The funny things is, I don't see any JAR/EASA licensed pilots complaining here, or on the various other threads, I don't hear of any JAR/EASA operators complaining, I don't hear of any member state regulators complaining........

Over the years we business/corporate operators have been inundated with regulation/rules that never applied to N-reg operators, putting us at a disadvantage. Proper operators don't mind rules and regulations if they are administered fairly across our industry, this ruling will make our industry a better place to operate in.

[peterh337]

There is a thread running here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/482087-n-reg-situation-update.html).

Yes this has been brewing for a few years, but what has caught people out is that EASA came up with a 2 year derogation (till April 2014) which offered breathing space for various conversion options to come along BUT, on the day (8/4/2012), it transpired that only a few EU countries had applied for the derogation.

Since the derogation is tied to the (vaguely speaking; the EASA reg is pretty vague which is how they like it) EU residence of the operator of the aircraft (the residence or citizenship of the pilot is irrelevant, unless he is the operator, which in the simple owner-pilot case is probably true) this means that most N-regs in the EU are now technically illegal to fly (or overfly) to most places in the EU, including within their own countries :ugh:

It's a huge mess.

Obviously there is no enforcement and nobody knows if/when there ever will be any.

The big question is why almost nobody has applied for the derogation.

Nearly all EU countries have for decades happily accomodated N-regs (and the FAA-based others like Caymans) on their soil, so it appears unlikely that they deliberately did not apply for the derogation in order to ground them. Much as the usual suspects (FTO owners, instructors, etc) like to believe this, it doesn't stack up for me, not least because most countries are full of foreign reg bizjets flying around their most influential people and politicians.

So I think it is a cockup, born out of

- EASA's hobby of generating 1000 page documents which obviously nobody (with a life) is going to read, and one needs an excellent (obscessive) understanding of aviation regulation to understand even parts of them. Even within each national CAA there will be only a few people who can understand this stuff.

- a broad hate of the EU and especially its current top level politics (Greek crisis, born partly out of heavy bribery of Greek politicians by German companies with Germany/France then wanting the money back, etc)

- an unwillingness to get involved in a complicated regulation (the "EU operator residence" has so many obvious work-arounds, for anybody above the level of a simple owner-pilot) for which there is absolutely no framework in traditional aviation, where a CAA ramp check looks for aircraft papers and pilot papers, simply...

I laugh at Cathar's mention of a "democratic process". See the euro parliament video links here (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/easa/index.html). It's a sham, with sycophantic behaviour reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Hitler visiting Italy. The "voting" is then followed by under the table dealing by EASA heads to get MEP support, by making promises like a BASA with the USA which the mostly clue-less MEPs won't realise is empty.

My own concern is that while PROB99.9 there won't be any criminal enforcement for years, if ever, your insurance could be void. This is why I did the JAA IR conversion (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/) recently. The JAA/EASA papers are not even valid to fly my own plane (do not meet FAR 61.3 once I am outside the UK) so they are a purely an insurance policy which cost me a fair bit of time and about £10k to buy and which will cost me about £200/year to renew (IR renewal annually and a PPL renewal 2-yearly). I would recommend anybody on a foreign reg to ask their insurer what he thinks of this situation. My experience is that the standard dumb answer is "you need to be legal" but at the same time they will be very concerned at a large % of their high net worth (bizjet) client base being potentially uninsured with the insurer aware of it.

[cldrvr]

As always the courts will fill in the holes and the bureacrats will catch on and pass amendments to the act. At least in the UK FAA licensed pilots have untill 2014 to pass their JAR licenses.

[NuName]

Tis true, no complaints from existing JAR crews, not likely from the state regulators either. What I find interesting is another pilots glee at fellow Europeans, or Brits even, being put out of work and their families suffering the inevitable hardship. Don't forget, we are not talking about foreigners nicking our jobs, its our countrymen that were just earning a living using a different states licence. And before you start crowing, I have a FAA ATPL as well as a JAR CPL that will soon be EASA ATPL, its like the vultures circling at the moment. No, you can't have my job.

[cldrvr]

No glee on my part, for the record I have both FAA and JAR licenses. However you need to look at this from an industry wide point of view. Some EU citizens and even a few Brits decided not to follow local rules and regs and obtain a FAA certificate instead, why should we as EU citizens allow some of us a cheaper and faster alternative to enter our place of work? Why should we have to abide by EU regs and regulations while some owners/operators are put at an advantage by virtue of their registration? Will some FAA licensed pilots lose thier jobs? Yes, probably and I do feel for them, that was a choice they made when they decided not to follow local rules and regs and obtain a non-EU license instead, however there will be openings for those that decided to stay within the EU framework and that is a good thing.

We shouldn't mind regs and regulations, it keeps the dumbest safe, they are mostly designed for the lowest common denominator among us. There would be a lot less complaining about rules and regs if they are fairly applied across our industry and getting rid of a loophole will make that so.

I bet you many of the FAA licensed pilots will bite the bullet and obtain their JAR licenses, you know what? About time, I and 1,000's of others had to do it.

This rule will help more then it will hurt. Don't just think of the few pilots, think of the benefit to the industry as a whole, from aircraft sales companies, to maintenance providers, from FTO's to avionics shops. This will make us JAR/EASA cerified pilots, shops and outfits more valuable. We have had to live with JAR/EASA regulations for a long time, closing down a major loophole will make the continued exposure to those regs a lot more bearable.

No more owners trying to get a discount because N-reg operation is that much cheaper, no more maintenance providers having to discount their bill trying to get closer to N-reg operational cost, no more questioning why OPC/LPC are so expensive compared to N-reg operation, no more questioning of factoring when it rains and the N-reg is halfway to the destination, no more questions about VAT/import. No more questions about the cost and frequency of medicals, no more questions about the full training requirement of the guy in the right seat, no more questions about the difference in daily rate between a JAR and FAA pilot.....

This is a major step in the right direction to level the playing field.

You live and operate in Europe, you follow the local rules, period. No more hiding under a N-reg. Transparency and consistency for all.

The next time the muppets at EASA bring in a dodgy or weird ruling, it won't be so bad as they are now applied uniformly to all operators and not just the EASA ones, while the N-reg guys have a good laugh at us....

[NuName]

I think your observations are a little flawed. You mention loopholes, and operating outside the regulations, this has never been the case. Whatever the registration of the aircraft or the pilots licence issuing state, the aircraft has always been required to operate within the regulations of the airspace it has been flown in. All pilots will need to have a licence of the state of registry, or at least a validation and this will not change. What may change is other states attitudes to EASA licences and the requirements they may see fit to reciprocate in a similar manner. We may find ourselves in the middle of a bun fight where, we, the pilots, find ourselves as cannon fodder. There was nothing wrong with what existed previously (now), if you got a job offer to fly a particular airplane, you needed the appropriate licence, safety was never an issue, this is all politics and it may well get ugly. Lets just hope not.

[peterh337]

because N-reg operation is that much cheaper,

Get real.

Obviously you have never owned and maintained an aircraft :ugh:

There is little difference in scheduled maintenance, for Part 91, and everything above that is AOC anyway.

[cldrvr]

Nuname, when was the last time you had to justify the cost of putting an N-reg on the JAR registry to an owner, when he could have just as easily left it on the N-reg and saved himself a bundle? When was the last time you had to explain that a certain STC/mod was not allowed purely because of the letters on the tail? When was the last time you had to justify time limited components or an inspection interval on a particular aircraft purely because it was JAR registered?

Peter, I have personally owned several N-reg and JAR registered aircraft, and have been directly involved in the ownership of others on both registries and know very well the differences in operational costs.

[NuName]

cldrvr, more times than I care to remember, in fact I am involved in it as we speak. But, these are choices, choices that certain people wish to see removed. I am sure you have extensive experience in aviation but do not, because of that, assume that no one else has. If an owner decides to put an aircraft on a European register then that is their choice and I am sure they have good reasons for doing so and fully understand the problems and costs associated with doing it. You are a great advocate of EASA it seems, and you have that priviledge without a doubt, but, to state that its unfair for others to take advantage of a perfectly legal situation to operate a private aircraft more efficiently is sour grapes. And to state that you feel you are being laughed at because an aircraft departs when you are unable surely refers to a private operation versus an AOC operation. That situation would occur regardless of the registration/pilot licence, including G reg with JAR pilots.

[Thomascl605]

So, how will they enforce this ? Perhaps I'll just pretend I didn't hear of any of this when the time comes in 2014. I mean, I don't exactly read the 1000 page drivel written by the overpaid worthless idiots in Brussels. I will expect my FAA Certs to be transferred at no cost to an EASA one. If not, there will be an extremely large lawsuit for loss of earnings being filed. I will of course win, and will retire and get out of the cesspool of Europe.

[cldrvr]

Good luck Thomas taking on the EU:

Non-privileged’ applicants, who may include individual employees, employers and trade unions, can directly complain to the European Court of Justice about acts of the EU institutions, but only under certain conditions: ‘Any natural or legal person may directly complain against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former’ (Article 263 TFEU). Although seemingly very wide, the ECJ has interpreted this provision very strictly. In the leading case of Plaumann & Co. v. Commission, Case 25/62 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61962J0025:EN:HTML), [1963] ECR 95, the ECJ allowed for individuals to complain about EU decisions directly to the ECJ only ‘… if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.’
Specifically, the ECJ has refused to accept that collective organisations representing their members qualify as individually and directly concerned. For example, the ECJ refused to hear two cases where French works councils complained against decisions of the Commission allowing mergers between French companies to proceed (Comité Central d’Entreprise de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources v. Commission, Case T-96/92 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61992B0096:EN:HTML) [1995]; Vittel v. Commission, Case T-12/93 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61993B0012:EN:HTML) [1995]), and again in a case where a works council complained about a Commission decision condemning state aid to an industry (Comité d’entreprise de la Société Française de Production v. Commission, Case T-189/97 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61997B0189:EN:PDF) [1998]).
The result is that it is very difficult for complaints to be made by individuals against actions of the EU institutions, even where these affect employment and industrial relations.
Plenty have tried, none have succeeded. The EU is as the UK, it is called "Parliamentary Supremacy":

At the heart of the meaning of ‘Parliamentary Supremacy’ is that Parliament has ultimate law making authority. There is no other body within the UK that can legislate contrary to or go against and challenge laws of the UK Parliament. There is no higher source of law than that which Westminster Parliament enacts.
Classic authority for this principle can be seen in cases such as Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 CL&F 710, Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765, R v Jordan [1967] Crim LR 483 and Jackson v AG [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262, where challenges to Acts of Parliament on both procedural and substantive grounds failed. The courts have not entertained any assertions that they have the power to decide not to apply an Act of Parliament for any reason. The courts have said they can do nothing other than apply an Act of Parliament, regardless of what it says or how it was enacted (as long as it is an Act of Parliament).


Two minutes on Google would have stopped you ranting and raving and instead focused on how to obtain a JAR/EASA license instead.

[DEIN]

Hey Guys,

What's the fight about :)

First of all what type of operations are we talking about? Private or under AOC ? What do you meant under "Based" (It's not always the place where the a/c is parked most of the time)?

For me personally it's very easy:
1. If the aircraft is privately operated the pilot should be compliant with regulation of the state of the registry.
2. If the aircraft is operated commercialy (under AOC) the pilot should be compliant with the regulation of the state of issuance of AOC.

and it has nothing to do with where the aircraft is "based" .

Correct me if i'm wrong

[cldrvr]

You are missing the point of the proposed regulation Dein, if you are a "EU based" operator, your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses. They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft, but the days of a FAA certified pilot in the EU and US registered aircraft in the EU are numbered.

[peterh337]

They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft

Who is fine tuning this and do you have any reference for that?

All we have is EASA FCL, as the law is written.

[DEIN]

"They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft" - that will take long:) it's extremely difficult to determine the "base". there are planty of operators having their corporate jets "based" in 4-5 different locations, so what's the base for this operator ?

Re regulation for European operators (AOC holders) "your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses" - It's been like that for quite a while , one can get validation of his/her FAA license from local NAA (only once) for a period of 12 month, if i remember properly. after you have to get your JAR/EASA license.

[cldrvr]

From the horses' mouth:

The new Implementing Rules implementing the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (http://easa.europa.eu/regulations/regulations-structure.php#BR) in the field of pilot licensing were published as Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 (http://easa.europa.eu/regulations/flight-standards-implementing-rules.php) on Aircrew in the Official Journal of the European Union on 25 November 2011.
As stated in this Regulation, the application date is 8 April 2012, though flexibility is introduced via transition measures contained in Article 12 of this Regulation.


Even though Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 (http://easa.europa.eu/regulations/regulations-structure.php#BR) has extended EU competence to flight crew licensing (FCL), until Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew (http://easa.europa.eu/regulations/flight-standards-implementing-rules.php) becomes applicable, Member States’ national rules remain in force.

Third country operators

Sorry, under construction

[peterh337]

Re regulation for European operators (AOC holders) "your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses" - It's been like that for quite a while , one can get validation of his/her FAA license from local NAA (only once) for a period of 12 month, if i remember properly. after you have to get your JAR/EASA license.

Yes; most countries, including some EU ones, would validate an ICAO CPL/IR or ATPL to their local pilot papes, if you have a relationship with a commercial operator on their registry. This is normal.

It is private (e.g. FAA Part 91) ops which this is aimed at.

Like I said earlier, while this has been cooking for a few years (and yes the bizjet community has had its head buried in the sand... witness many threads here) what has caught everybody out is that most EU countries have not applied for the 2 year derogation.

It seems clear that EASA used the 2 year derogation, with their usual vague promise of a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA, as the under-the-table carrots to get enough MEP support for the crucial vote some months ago.

But EASA left the derogation on a per-country optional basis. Perhaps this was a clever ruse, knowing that most of the national CAAs have nobody there with the will to live long enough to read the EASA FCL tomes, let alone understand them. Or perhaps everybody underestimated the apathy at all levels around Europe, towards the EU and the crap coming out of Brussels.

[S-Works]

This had been coming for years. What I don't understand is how people are shocked that it's happened. I gave always said that the pen pushers would pay lip service to protest and then do exactly as they pleased.

People have buried there head in the sand pure and simple.

I don't agree that it's correct but it was inevitable.

[WestWind1950]

So, how will they enforce this ?

ever here of ramp checks? I know the FAA enjoy doing those.....

Perhaps I'll just pretend I didn't hear of any of this when the time comes in 2014. I mean, I don't exactly read the 1000 page drivel written by the overpaid worthless idiots in Brussels.

ignorance is no excuse, no matter what business you're in.

I will expect my FAA Certs to be transferred at no cost to an EASA one. If not, there will be an extremely large lawsuit for loss of earnings being filed. I will of course win, and will retire and get out of the cesspool of Europe.

http://www.dorrie.de/images/smilies/laughing.gif

[peterh337]

Third country operators

Sorry, under construction Those are explanatory notes, which with some googling (because you didn't bother to post links) can be found here (http://easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/faq.html).

But these are just EASA explanatory notes. There is no legal interpretation, and anyway EASA does not make law. They have to put everything before the EU parliament, and that have just finished with FCL.

So the current unworkable "operator residence" etc wording is here to stay - much as you wish otherwise :)

[Contacttower]

Over the years we business/corporate operators have been inundated with regulation/rules that never applied to N-reg operators, putting us at a disadvantage. Proper operators don't mind rules and regulations if they are administered fairly across our industry, this ruling will make our industry a better place to operate in.

I highly doubt it will. All this will do is drive up the overall cost of aircraft ownership and operation, how on earth can that be a good thing?

The problem with all this EASA stuff as has been discussed over on Private Flying is that they have never really looked at why the whole question of N-reg ever became an issue at all. People saw it as a way to escape regulation because that regulation was costly and unnecessary. All this garbage about FTOs, Maintenance organisations etc that has been piled on the industry over the years drove people to keeping aircraft on the N-reg. EASA's approach from the outset was to just force everyone into the same straight jacket rather than addressing issues with EU regulations. Instead of demanding that everyone be held to the same ridiculous standards people should be looking at those standards in the first place.

As people quite rightly pointed out getting FAA licences was often done simply because they were needed to fly all these N-reg aircraft floating around in Europe. I've never understood this issue of people who did JAA licences holding a grudge against people who operate FAA; just because you have spent money on something that was ridiculously more expensive than an alternative does not mean that everyone should be forced to do the same. I hold both JAA and FAA multi-IRs and my view is that the whole JAR IR/ATPL thing should be rationalised so that it is cheaper and more accessible.

None of this local regulations stuff would matter if EASA were reasonable about the regulation of private/business flying, particularly the issue of foreign licence conversion. People are only up in arms about it because of the costs/hassle involved.

Ultimately yes EASA should be allowed to set standards for permanently based operators in the EU but they sure as hell could be making life easier for people in the transition.

[madlandrover]

which will cost me about £200/year to renew (IR renewal annually and a PPL renewal 2-yearly).

Not quite - your SEP revalidation (assume this is what you mean by PPL renewal) will be absolutely free, assuming you fly 12 hours in the second year of validity. Can't help so easily on the IRR sadly...

[peterh337]

Do you mean the IR renewal acts as a PPL renewal also? It ought to, for the price ;)

[Thomascl605]

Dear Westwind,

You said about ramp checks and ignorance, lol ! You really haven't got a clue have you ? Same as Cldvr our domiciled pro EASA super bottom feeder who actually reads the endless tripe out of the bowels of Brussels.

Ok, let's have a ramp check then when this rubbish comes online in 2014. The law of precedent has been set for the previous god knows how many years of working in Europe absolutely fine on FAA Certs. The reason please for this change ? The CAA haven't written to me to tell me, 2014 is the first i'll know of it. it'll have to be damn good to make me shell out thousands on a pointless and time consuming conversion to fly the same aircraft.

No, this isn't acceptable to me at all. This is one law too many out of Brussels. I'll happily take on EASA over this, happy to chuck in a few grand at least in 2014 to have my say and fight for what is right and fair.

Now let's see, around two million in lost earnings over the rest of my working life, better get writing that cheque EASA.

[moonym20]

cldrvr, you seen to have a massive chip on your shoulder pal, for why I just don't know...

I would actually love to step up to bat and throw my concerns into the ring but i'm keeping very busy on an FSI course for one of the jets I'm extremely lucky to fly (on my FAA ticket) for a living.

To the FAA guys I'm in a similar position to... Good Luck! :ok:

[flyingfemme]

@cldrvr I don't know which planet you are living on but it's clearly different to mine........
I haven't found an EU based maintenance operator that is not dual qualified - their rates are exactly the same whatever the letters on your tail.
The import thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the letters on your tail and everything to do with the home base of the aircraft. Banning N reg aircraft will not make a shred of difference to that.
Far from being good for aviation, this can only be bad. Many owners use aircraft for their ease and convenience.....make them less easy and conveient and their utility comes into question. Every owner who decides that they can't be arsed or doesn't want to waste money for no good reason means jobs lost - pilots, engineers, sales etc.etc.etc. They won't all go to charter and may even remove themselves from the EU altogether - with even more loss of jobs/income.
This is not a war of ideals, it is business and the EU has proved, comprehensively and repeatedly, that it doesn't care if people make a living or not, or if they live or die in an aircraft. Their job should be safety, not points scoring, and encouraging business so that somebody's taxes pay their salaries. Other places are more welcoming and will be standing by to mop up the gravy from that famous train.

[cldrvr]

Yup, all these N-reg owners are either gonig to sell their aircraft and fly Ryanair (of course nobody in Europe is going to buy those aircraft, they will all end up in the US and Asia) while some other owners are going to root up their business, family and friends and move to Africa so they can continue using their aircraft.


Blimey, I am in a sarcastic mood today.

[peterh337]

You certainly have a warped view of the aviation world.

It's not unusual though.

A while ago I went to an aviation presentation. Got talking to one well lunched (well rounded) chappie, who turned out to work for the CAA. We exchanged a few words on GA and he went off on a rant on how N-regs evade maintenance etc etc etc (all the usual crap). I then asked him what he flew (as one does); it turned out he had never even had a PPL and had never flown anything. His aviation education seemed to have come wholly from others like him, and the Daily Mail. I know there are plenty of real pilots in the CAA but they also have a load of bad eggs like this one. The moment he learnt I was an aircraft owner and god forbid actually flew to places, he excused himself :E

Flyingfemme has it spot on.

BTW if I was going to illegal charters, or better still fly a plane without any maintenance, pilot license or medical, and fly IFR all over Europe, guess which reg I would pick? G or N?

[cldrvr]

Explain to me why my view is so warped, the N-reg boys are abusing a loophole, the loophole is now shut. You live and work in the EU, you follow the rules here, don't like it? Go live somewhere else.

This ruling is long overdue and welcomed by 99% of the pilots and operators here.

I do feel for those who are going to lose their jobs, but you were lucky you got away with it for this long.


The VAT boys are surely licking their fingers in anticipation too.

[peterh337]

Tell me, cldrvr, when you pay your income tax, and the allowance is say £7k, and your gross is say 20k, do you pay tax on 13k, or do you do the socially responsible thing as a proper citizen of the united republic of europe and pay tax on the whole 20k?

The latter is the morally correct way. On top of that, if you really want to occupy the moral high ground, you sell your plane and donate the proceeds to the next Bangladesh flood appeal (due in about 2 weeks' time, usually). Or give it to Greece. (I'd approve of that; I fly there often; love the islands).

What a complete load of bollox about a "loophole". The UK signed a treaty called ICAO, which according to my very nearly (thankfully) forgotten JAA IR theory was signed in 1944 (or was it 1945, no WW2 ended then didn't it...) and this treaty permits aircraft to travel freely, subject to certain limits when operating commercially. Almost all countries have signed it. Most civilised countries have implemented it to a reasonable degree for private ops, and with a tight oversight regime for commercial ops.

Everybody knows the sensible way to approach this issue: align the Euro and the FAA systems. Nobody actually wants to be on the N-reg. It's a hassle.

Why don't the euro communists do that? Because aviation regulation here is little to do with safety. It's all to do with job protection, job creation, organised labour related working practices, all that kind of crap. Most of the people involved are too short sighted to see beyond the end of their nose. And you are one of them. No doubt, if you park your jet next to another jet which is bigger and has a toilet which can be externally emptied, you will go all green with envy and sneak up to it and loosen its landing gear brake hoses.

[peterh337]

I want to know about this too massive cost saving opportunity too, please.

Email if preferred :ok:

[mad_jock]

They might realine in 10-20 years time. BUt they can't do it now until all the previous people that went N reg in europe have been made to convert over so they haven't recieved any benefit compared to those that have stuck with local reg.

It is a loophole you have to use as a none US person to even be able to own your plane. If it was only US passport holders or even green card holders that had N reg in Europe nobody would give a toss.

But you pay a company to hold your plane in trust which as a none US citizen your not allowed to own, with a N reg.

Looks like a loophole to me.

[mattman]

I am struggling to understand what loop hole everybody is referring to.

N reg in Europe are generally VAT paid (no AOC so no getting 0% rated) and yes those loop holes are closed (example: Danish 2010), and you would not want to fly in France without having this little VAT paid cetificate.

They pay the same NAV, airport, fuel fees and because they are not AOC they pay duties and VAT.

Jet crews need to be type rated and proficient thus every year off to the States for recurrent and they even changed their policies to have rated SIC.
Plus some owners and operators keep the standard and do 6 monthly recurrent’s.

Fair enough the Licence process has been the focus now because it is apparently cheaper, which it is, and yet proved again and again on par or better than most counterparts in safety. Just because you went the JAR route and suffered financially and mentally in obtaining it is not my problem.

In the Middle East many nationalities and licences mix in the cockpit and fly everywhere in the world and operate to, IMHO, a better standard than many European operations.

I have not heard anywhere that you can't own and operate a non N reg in the States, the only reason its not done because it does not make sense.

Yes i am in the same boat, but as my wife said "we have done Angola to Afghanistan, if the European mentality is now receded to a dictatorship we lived with it in the past we will do what we always do and just move on."

Personally I don’t earn the high flying salary that we all dreamed about when the dream of flight came to me, if it was a simple process and if there was recognition for my experience I would have gladly followed the line but I can't afford it and thats the sad truth.

I have 4 licences from four different countries and validations from another 3 and have always been able to comply but this time I am out. I will fly till the non-elected prosecute me and then I move on.

Sadly I am finally getting settled in my current home and its a shame to uproot my wife and son but hey what would life be without a struggle.

P.S

As a side note, I run and manage the operation I am in, it has been 6 long years of swallowing my pride and dealing with some very difficult people, if they don’t find people like myself and the other guys in it, this is one operation that will terminate. Which is a shame?

[S-Works]

Perhaps the N reg guys should have spent less time telling the world how crap the JAA was and how easy the FAA IR was and kept there head down.....

As I have said many times before, I don't agree with what has happened as it is petty, but it was pretty inevitible. Keep poking a hornets nest and gloating about it and you will get stung. The little men in EASA have really stung you this time.

[Contacttower]

I think this whole episode has illustrated how meaningless the concept of regulatory oversight at a national level (or indeed EU level) has become in aviation, I mean the whole thing being dependent on the letter painted on your plane etc or where you live or whose air you happen to frequent. In an ideal world the USA and the EU would just agree on common standards for licencing, airspace etc, everyone's lives would be so much easier. Not going to happen, but would be nice. :)

[proudprivate]

Well Cathar, I hope they pay YOU very well, as PR co-ordinator for EASA

For what he is doing, Cathar is paid very well by EASA. He is not a PR coordinator (AFAIK he doesn't work in EASA's communications and external relations department), but has been lying on a number of occasions to the interested GA public about the Basic Regulation (drafting) and its likely implications and further implementations. As such, he is very ill-positioned to answer your question.

At Paygrade 14, he makes about € 14000 + expat allowance + benefits a month, all minimally taxed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming back to 4x4's original query, I find it hard to believe that you, if you are in employment, the new implementation of part FCL would actually have legal precedence over your current employment and the article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Surely your legal council should be able to tell you who to sue should you lose employment over it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

A few people obviously have some axes to grind in this forum. Examiners like bose-x (?) and billliebob (?) have a clear pecuniary interest in gold plating the FCL scene, with as many pointless recurrent flight tests as possible. Even if a logical natural conversion / grandfathering process form FAA papers to EASA papers were introduced, they would make a killing.
The same goes for Flight Training Organisations, that count on many useless but expensive conversions. In view of the many UK FTO's involved in the foul lobbying process over the last couple of years, I would advise anyone interested in EASA flight training to go abroad (Spain, Portugal and Greece spring to mind).


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Normally any reasonable person would be pro a simple straightforward uniform European regulatory environment in aviation. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't exist, because Member States keep clinging towards their own little quircks and exceptions in countless different subdomains.
If you cannot agree on a single European airspace, you shouldn't have a € 100+ Million annual budget organisation like EASA producing one incomprehensable and silly rule after the other. As such you are crippling and in the end you're just destroying an entire industry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

EASA comitology is a perfect example of the current democratic deficit in Europe. You have an organisation without much oversight and accountability that can sprout rules like a bad case of writer's diarrhea. The production process of these rules lacks any kind of transparency and every now and again, rules are produced that go well beyond EASA's mandate. In addition, EASA and the Commission make a mockery of their own so called "Code of Good Administrative Behaviour", leaving the general public in the cold.
Oversight by the Commission comes in the form of blackmail by a bunch of frustrated and I dare say incompetent Aviation Safety "experts" like Eckard Seebohm. EASA is forced to do what they say, because the Commission can virtually eliminate large chunks of EASA's budget with a few keystrokes.
Oversight by the European Parliament is only there in theory. The Commission is also in a position to blackmail them, because the Commission has the sole prerogative to propose legislation. The average member of the Transport Committee in the EP doesn't really understand the issues or wants to press other issues. I found out that Brian Simpson folded partly because the Commission threatened to thwart some of his Rail-related ideas, so go figure.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I find it a pity that so much of this mess is driven by "hating America"*. The rantings of clvrdr, which show a clear lack of understanding of the N-reg scene, are the latest painful example. People are not N-reg because they want to dodge taxes, but because they want a straightforward training scene, a straightforward maintenance process and pay fees commensurate with services rendered.

*Sure, there are quite of few topics where the behaviour of our starred and striped friends has been anything but exemplary, but I do have the impression that they understand what aviation is all about. If I were to design a rulebook for Europe, I would take a good look at what title 14 CFR has on offer, throw away their protectionist nonsense, focus on the safety related bits that have a history and use that as a basis for a pan-european aviation legislation. But that would be under the assumption that the European Member States actually want a uniform and clear and straighforward aviation rulebook.

[Cathar]

For what he is doing, Cathar is paid very well by EASA. He is not a PR coordinator (AFAIK he doesn't work in EASA's communications and external relations department), but has been lying on a number of occasions to the interested GA public about the Basic Regulation (drafting) and its likely implications and further implementations. As such, he is very ill-positioned to answer your question.

At Paygrade 14, he makes about € 14000 + expat allowance + benefits a month, all minimally taxed.


I am very obviously confused about where I work (and how much I earn)! Thank you for the clarification.

I would be interested to know who I am in proudprivate's world - and what colour the sky is there.

[madlandrover]

Do you mean the IR renewal acts as a PPL renewal also? It ought to, for the price

No. Assuming that you're now maintaining JAA/EASA licences and ratings on top of your FAA ones, you won't be doing any renewals anyway - just revalidations. Sounds pedantic but it may become an important difference in the next few months ;).

Your JAR PPL is currently revalidated on a 5 year cycle by admin action. Next time round it'll be reissued as an EASA PPL and thus valid for life. Your SEP rating, on the other hand, is valid for 2 years. It can be revalidated either by test or by experience. The experience route requires 12 hours in the 2nd year, inc 6 P1 and 1 full hour with an FI. This hour with an FI can be replaced by any successful test, eg I've never revalidated my own SEP rating by an hour with an instructor, I've always used a test instead, be it FI test, MEP, IR, etc. In the (unlikely I know!) event that you haven't managed the experience requirements then your IR reval can also be combined into a SEP reval with some additional items. Some examiners will charge extra for this, but the paperwork itself for a revalidation by experience is free :).

[peterh337]

This hour with an FI can be replaced by any successful testThat's what I was getting at.

If I fly say 150hrs in a year, the annual IR renewal should be usable as the PPL revalidation. The instructor I am most likely to do the IR renewal with can also do PPL initial skills tests, etc.

FWIW I've always had a UK/JAA PPL and a UK medical. But I let the 5 year admin renewal lapse because I didn't need it. I always kept up the medicals because I use an AME who does both at the same time. I then redid the PPL with an examiner.

[BillieBob]

Peter, you did not need to 'revalidate' your JAA PPL, but you did need to get it re-issued every 5 years. This was a purely administrative process and required only that you held a valid medical and had held a type or class rating valid within the preceding 5 years. No specific test or experience requirements existed for the re-issue of the licence, particularly not the PPL Skill Test or any part of it.

A successful IR proficiency check currently may count as the 'training flight with an instructor' required to revalidate a SEP Class Rating by experience. However, under the new rules (i.e. from 1 July), only a class or type rating proficiency check or skill test will count for this purpose.

I'm not sure where MJ is coming from with the statement that there will be "no more renewals - just revalidations". The same distinction between revalidation before expiry and renewal after expiry remains in respect of all ratings and certificates under the EASA implementing rules.

[peterh337]

and had held a type or class rating valid within the preceding 5 years

Maybe that's why I had to do a (more or less) PPL skills test. I left it for 6 years. I got the original PPL in 2001, didn't renew it in 2006, and when I came to "recover it" in ~2008 I had to do the skills test. Are you saying this wasn't needed?

The only revals I did were in 2002 (IMCR skills test) and one in 2004.

I had the FAA papers since 2004.

Regarding using the IR renewal (with some additional VFR work) for the PPL reval, it would seem to me that this is a private matter between you and the IRE - unless some regulation states that you have to actually land between the two.

[theaviator2005]

I have been asked to write a reply in here by a group of fellow Pilots. They are currently in the final stages of creating a new Association for Pilots in Europe.

The Association is to be for all groups of aviation within Europe and will primarily work on allowing Pilots to have a greater say in the various issues that has lately been coming from EASA/JAA/CAA and so forth.

No matter if it is the Private Pilot, Biz-jet Pilot or Airline Pilot, they feel that we all as pilot's has the right to be heard, and not just be put on the sideline which can be seen in this thread yet again has happened.

There currently are only a few organizations/groups in Europe working all the issues that has come up in the past years, but they feel that more can be done.

Issues as we seen just within the past year like Duty-time limitations to increase together with several others just can not go on without a fight.

So they would like me to post this here and try to see if others feel the same way and if they can find support from fellow Pilots who would be interested to Join once everything is finalized. It is of-cause FREE.

Currently the last few steps to be completed are the finalizing of the website/logo a a few other items that will all be completed within a short time.

Once everything is ready they will like to welcome all fellow pilots interested to join as free members and have a say in the general outline of the issues that we feel must be pushed. Together with creating a Board of Pilots who will take the lead in talking to the various Aviation and Government bodies throughout Europe.

Thanks

[Thomascl605]

4 x 4 has the right attitude, and I would strongly suggest that other pilots currently employed and flying on FAA Certs in Europe do not pay a euro cent to convert their licences to EASA.

This is indeed against human rights laws (discrimination) and it will be met with lawsuits. Mad Jock's rants about being jailed for not complying etc show him for the ill educated school boy that he is. A pathetic attempt at scaremongering by the pack mentality of him and Cldrvr that share one brain cell between them.

I strongly suggest to EASA that pilots currently employed on FAA Certs in Europe are immediately issued with an equivalent EASA licence with no conversion required.

This isn't exactly new, I can recall years ago when JAA first arrived on the scene that many FAA qualified pilots employed in certain newly accepted European countries, were actually given equivalent licences under JAA if requested without the need for conversion.

So, either accept this EASA, or get writing a very large cheque.

Oh, and I haven't heard of anyone being arrested in European member states who are flying on FAA Certs where the Country hasn't deferred implementation until 2014. They would find it impossible as most Pilots probably haven't heard of this pathetic ruling from the comatose bottom feeder sessions in Brussels.

[mad_jock]

Ain't going to happen unless FAA issue certs to EASA license holders under the same terms.

You can't sue for a legislation change affecting you.

We will see what comes out in the wash.

I suspect that this has been planned for years and just now its in the final play.

As bose says folk have been poking them for years and now they have got the reaction.

[Thomascl605]

Mad Jock, Yes, I can sue for a legislation change affecting me. You really don't know anything do you ? Your must have a really high opinion of yourself to think that you act as policeman, judge and EASA spokesman.

[S-Works]

I have been asked to write a reply in here by a group of fellow Pilots. They are currently in the final stages of creating a new Association for Pilots in Europe.

Just what we need, yet another organisation thinking they should represent pilots but will just add to the confusion.

Spend your time productivity by getting pilots to support the voices they already have.

You might be free now, but that's not a sustainable model. Travel to meetings etc as well as websites, technology etc all need paying for.

[peterh337]

As bose says folk have been poking them for years and now they have got the reaction.Bose has never been among those poking them (http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N930Z.html), of course ;)

Funny how people adjust their forum posts as it suits.

There are many other examples but I have better things to do than spend time digging them out.

Such hypocrisy.

[hawker750]

CLDRVR quote:
"I can see exactly where the EU is coming from, they want to regulate the aircraft based and operated within the EU and are no longer tolerating non EU registered aircraft based within its borders, what is wrong with that"?

I assume this means that all M registered aircraft based in Europe will be affected and told to operate from Ronaldsway Airport on a permanant basis as the I-O-M is not a member of the EU.

[theaviator2005]

"Just what we need, yet another organisation thinking they should represent pilots but will just add to the confusion.
Spend your time productivity by getting pilots to support the voices they already have.
You might be free now, but that's not a sustainable model. Travel to meetings etc as well as websites, technology etc all need paying for."


U currently only have AOPA, as the majority which is not many of other associations/organizations are either Airline Specific or created for the Airline pilots. You do not find one that pulls all together for a common goal.

The once that started never succeeded...

Reason being that it is free is that one of the founders are more then well off, and a GA Pilot who likes to make sure everyone is head at the government bodies... But thanks for being positive, it sure is going well in the aviation community right now right??? ;-)

[S-Works]

Quote:
As bose says folk have been poking them for years and now they have got the reaction.
Bose has never been among those poking them, of course

Funny how people adjust their forum posts as it suits.

There are many other examples but I have better things to do than spend time digging them out.

Such hypocrisy.


Never denied being an N reg pilot, proud of the fact. Just that I have not spent my life goading the CAA etc with how much better and easier the FAA system. You in the other hand spent years convincing everyone how much better it was and easier and ramming it down the throats of the CAA's. You assured us that a ban or restriction would never work because you had such a powerful voice in Europe with the business operators. I just pointed out that most business crews were already dual qualified and the impact on them would be fairly minimal. They never came to your aid as forecast.

I told you a number of years ago thus would happen, but rather than listen you did as you ae doing now,resorted to childish efforts to discredit me.

I will admit to getting great pleasure out of you being proved wrong,despite the fact that I actually don't support it as I don't think it benefits flight safety at all.

Funny how you changed your tune in the end and got yourself a JAA PPL/IR though. Now who is the hypocrite?

At the end of the day it does not impact me as I have been dual qualified for years but I do feel for the guys whose careers this basically ends for nothing more than politics.

[S-Works]

Reason being that it is free is that one of the founders are more then well off, and a GA Pilot who likes to make sure everyone is head at the government bodies... But thanks for being positive, it sure is going well in the aviation community right now right??? ;-)

And when they get bored or run out of money or realise how selfish the pilot population is and get pissed of and quit, where does the money come from?

Not to mention that if you can't even research who else is in the game how do you expect to get a place at the table? There are several representative bodies in the pot, all with a place at the table.

Your attempt is laudable but naive.

[theaviator2005]

Haha Reading your previous post on the forum makes do make you sound like a grumpy old man that's just gone through a divorce... Good one for having a constant negative towards the majority of people who post on this forum!!!!

:ok:

[bla bla]

What determents where an aircraft is "based"?

[peterh337]

The EASA wording is on where the Operator is based.

The location (or usual location) of the aircraft might one day feature in somebody's interpretation of where the Operator is based, but currently it appears nothing to do with it.

One definition of an Operator is whoever controls where the aircraft flies. This leads to various pretty obvious solutions/workarounds for many higher-end ops. It is not helpful for the typical single private owner-pilot (like myself) but if e.g. you imagine an aircraft rental outfit which is based on the IOM which runs a booking website, and owns the aircraft, and can refuse any given booking attempt, then presumably that outfit is the Operator.

And if I can think of that, I am sure that aviation lawyers are well on the case already.

It's just the small people that are getting shafted by EASA, not the bigger stuff which is emotionally the biggest red rag to the anti foreign reg bulls.

[Contacttower]

Ain't going to happen unless FAA issue certs to EASA license holders under the same terms.

If EASA made it as easy for an FAA pilot to convert to a EASA PPL/ATPL or whatever as it currently is for a EASA holder to go to the US and get an equivalent FAA licence then there would be no problem...

More political questions, like the ease of foreigners working in the respective countries is a slightly different question...


Great so see this thread getting personal...:ugh::ugh:

[theaviator2005]

People are so afraid that uhhh all the foreigners are gonna come steal our jobs in Europe.... That's a bunch of BULL....

It is by far HARDER to get a Work-permit for an American in Europe then it is for a European to get hired by an American company....

Reason why it does not happen a lot in the states is that most companies do not wanna waist their time on the application process which is actually quite simple...

Ya I got the right to live and work in both the states and in Europe and i had to hire both Europeans in the states and TRIED to hire foreigners in Europe which was a MUCH greater Hazel!!!

EASA and not only EASA but the majority of Aviation government bodies like CAA and others around Europe, are being governed by a bunch of grumpy old men/woman where some of them may have seen a cockpit back in the 70's but thats about it... Dont believe me?? checkout the CAA offices in Gatwick (uk) NOTHING but old folk's who would benefit more from sitting at a retirement home then with their right hand on the aviation law's in Europe.

Can it be more retarded then it is right now? Sure it can and it will as long as you have a government body like EASA which is full of 50% old and narrow-minded x-aviators and 50% paper-pushers who got absolutely no knowledge of any kind when it comes to Aviation.

Which regulations has come up lately that has had ANY benefit towards any pilot right now????

Not long ago 100 Airline pilots from Europe who did the 14 JAA exams 5 Years + ago sat down and did 2 Multiple Choice JAA ATPL Exams as a study to see how well the great JAA training still stuck... needless to say that 94% FAILED BOTH TEST.

But the matter of fact is that the BIGGEST difference between Europe and the rest of the world are these 14 exams.

"Do your 14 exams and take an ATPL skill-test and now ur ok to fly in Europe, they said to John who was 54 and 13000hrs flying all types of private and airlines" **** OFF John said ill rather just join Emirates!! Which he did!!!

What are the reasons that the new rule is gonna take place? Is it a safety Issue???? NO not at all the problems facing should that be the reason would be beyond anything else as that directly would say that FAA/ICAO Pilots are ****ty compared to European Pilots!!!! Is it an issue about foreigners stealing the job's from Europeans?? No not that either!!! Is it the tax issues that was big 3-5 years ago... No not really that Either cos we already go the regulations stating that an aircraft is only allowed to stay in a European country for X-amount of time...

Well what the fxxxx is it then!!!!

I flown for over 12 years not yes not a lot compared to others, and all i see is an Aviation system that is rotting more then ever:\

[BillieBob]

Peter, what you did to get your PPL re-issued was a class rating skill test, not the PPL skill test. The IR proficiency check will not in itself go any way towards revalidating or renewing a SEP class rating.

There is no reason that the CRE/IRR who conducts the IR proficiency check cannot also conduct a class rating proficiency check in the same flight but they remain two distinct and separate checks (and entirely separate from the PPL skill test). It is the ability to use the IR proficiency check in place of the training flight with an instructor that is removed under Part-FCL

[hawker750]

There seems to be a lot of informed people here. Could someone reply to my earlier post. Will M reg aircraft be affected as the Isle of Man is not in the EU?

[peterh337]

Not long ago 100 Airline pilots from Europe who did the 14 JAA exams 5 Years + ago sat down and did 2 Multiple Choice JAA ATPL Exams as a study to see how well the great JAA training still stuck... needless to say that 94% FAILED BOTH TEST.

Do you have any details of that experiment? It doesn't suprise me; in the 7 JAA IR exams I did last year, at least 90% was not relevant to any form of aviation.

Many thx BillieBob for that info. It will save a bit of money.

Will M reg aircraft be affected as the Isle of Man is not in the EU?

Current "wisdom" seems to be that if the Operator is in the IOM then the pilot(s) will not need EASA papers.

This is dead handy for private owner-pilots who live on the IOM, or in the Channel Islands, all of whom appear to be totally protected from the EASA measure.

[mad_jock]

Thomas have a look at post 26 on this thread. You can't.

[proudprivate]

Dear MJ,

Post #26 is about "locus standi" in European law. The cases drummed up by our honourable and learned friend have their roots in competition law. It basically boils down to the fact that representing organisations such as Balpa, N-Flyers, Aopa etc... cannot sue the Commission "on behalf of their members".

But obviously any individual Balpa member or any individual Aopa member or any individual citizen, if affected, can sue the Commission over a violation of Article 15 of the Charter (or any other article of any relevant treaty or rule - discrimination springs to mind too). And if half a dozen citizens sue at the same time on the same grounds, then cases are often merged. It then simply becomes "Bloggs, Jones, The Republic of Ireland, Cirrus Europe Ltd and the Bishop of Durham versus the Commission" or something like that. It'll take them 12-18 months to get to a decision, and it'll cost around € 10,000 in legal fees, but considering that the rest of his career is at stake, I'd say it's worth the time and effort.

So instead of "having a look" at post #26, I would suggest clvdr and yourself actually read it.

[mad_jock]

We shall see what comes out in the wash.

To be honest its not really worth arguing about.

They obviously have a plan, even if EASA goes tits up now the regulation is now on the books of every country. You would have to get every country to change it again.

Maybe thats been there plan from the start, get a heap of legislation through which is going to cause uproar then disappear.

Suddenly there is nobody to sue and your looking at working through every countries court systems to try and get it changed.

[Contacttower]

OK I'm very tempted to join in this discussion of EU lawmaking...I subject that I know a little bit about...but I'll leave that one to others...

[lanef300]

I've contacted the DGAC (French CAA), their answer was an astounding 'we have no clue, check the EASA website'.
Nevertheless they were able to report that in France, the transition period will last not 2 but 1 year.

More info (or lack of) there, in french:
Reconnaissance des licences - Ministère du Développement durable (http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Reconnaissance-des-licences.html)

[peterh337]

France is an interesting case, because they have their own IR. It appears to be for private pilots only, however.

The whole thing is a mystery because France, of all people, would have the inside track on internal EASA workings.

[madlandrover]

It is the ability to use the IR proficiency check in place of the training flight with an instructor that is removed under Part-FCL

Well noticed - I hadn't got that far in reading Part-FCL, still busy rewriting course manuals to remain compliant. In the old days we would have had a NOTEX by now...

[BillieBob]

No rush on the manuals - you have until 2014 to become fully compliant. I'm leaving mine on the grounds that I may have decided to jack it all in before then.

[4x4]

Gentlemen....many thanks for your responses to my posting, both supportive and non. It has made very interesting reading, and am quite sure that everyone who has expressed a passionate opinion, has done so from their own viewpoint and most likely feels totally justified.

I have been a little taken aback by some of the venom that was forthcoming, especially with regard to N Reg Pilots and Operators, from some, whom are probably still in their early years in this great Industry of ours....Yes Guys, the truth is, whether you want to get on your High Horse and act like a Trotskyist Trade Union Leader.....and demand that JAA/EASA is the only true way forward....the simple fact is....we do love Flying.....not for the Money.....I am saddened, when, with the potential loss of my Career....I can hear fellow Pilots commenting that the Demise of N Reg Aircraft in Europe will increase their own personal incomes.....I started flying at the age of 13....working as a Hangar Rat, 4 weekends work, got 1 hour in an Auster. That is why I started flying.

Something I did not mention in my thread, was that I completed all the old CAA ATPL, but due to the positions I was offered over the years, I let it lapse....yes, De Facto.....we can, and have been as diligent as you....but life sometimes takes some different paths.....but the one thing I do recall, was that having completed "all those nasty CAA exams".....did I come away really that much better off....CAAFU's Initial IR was no different to my FAA Multi I/R....perhaps a little less Starchy maybe...but the flight standard....no different. Morse Code and Astro Nav.....need I say more.

I for one, have never baited the CAA/JAA/EASA.....and I don't think that many of my Professional colleagues have either.....we just got on with our jobs and made a living, within the auspices of the Rules and regulations enacted within the ICAO accords......yes of course, we have all heard the NEWBIE and Wannabe, crowing about how much easier it appears to do an FAA course as opposed to the European equivalent.....but Easier?....less costly certainly.....but young men are a little stupid, and sometimes don't say the cleverest things. Having held both Licences, I see upsides and downsides to both....and in truth, perhaps we should all do both, as I believe that the blend of European Academia, and American Practicality produce a far better Pilot, and also if it enables younger Pilots to gain more hours at a cheaper price, then this is a good thing......as nothing, in my humble opinion....nothing...replaces experience.

If we were being inundated with Dodgy Crews from Godonlyknowswhereistan, then I could understand some of the opinions expressed here, but this is not the case...this is the EU doing some FAA kicking, and just because the FAA is not going to submit to Petty Rulings, and Farcical regulations that are dream't up in an institution the likes of which we find in Brussels....

Should therE be any FAA N-reg drivers or owners out there who are in a similar position to myself, then please PM me, and we can talk further about this, and whether, as mentioned earlier in this thread, there is any remote possibility of bringing a Discriminatory case against the EU/EASA.

[FrankR]

Nice post 4x4

For my two cents, we pilots are all better off if we can fly everything, everywhere.

To continue this logic of building walls, the EU pilots would be the ones getting screwed the most if the FAA came up with these nonsense regs or went further and said only US citizens could get FAA licenses or fly N reg aircraft.

[peterh337]

Good post 4x4 :ok:

There has never been any kind of safety case for an anti N-reg action, and not even EASA pretends there is any such.

The justification given by the EASA gravy train riders, when asked face to face, tends to be "we are Europeans and we must have European rules, not American rules".

That kind of reply is self evidently stupid but they are in power whereas you are not :)

It's like you telling your 2 year old kid that he can't have the ice cream because Mum did not let you buy the car you wanted. It works because you have all the power and he has none, but it leaves the same kind of bad taste in the mouth.

Regulators aside, the people who are in favour of these Euro rules are usually doing it for straight financial reasons.

Maintenance shops like N-regs because they charge the G-reg price but they don't have to change (Part 91 ops) some lifed parts and they get you to pay the A&P/IA separately to get the Annual signed off :E

[Captain Smithy]

Have followed this thread with interest. I personally feel that EASA is just JAR all over again; yet again a massive upheaval for the industry creating gross amounts of totally unnecissary paperwork and eye-watering costs that drive pilots out of careers/hobbies and squeezes already pressed operators even harder, all for no safety benefit whatsoever (which is what JAR/EASA has supposedly been all about, ironically) and what seems to be nothing more that a thinly-veiled political agenda of empire-building.

The reason that many have went down the FAA route quite simply is down to much more reasonable costs for training, licensing, maintenance and less paperwork. The hard fact is that the FAA route for both pilots and operators is a much friendlier, easier, cheaper and far less hostile route than JAR/EASA. EASA obviously don't like this but it is they who created the "problem" of European pilots/operators being licensed outside the holy land of the United States of Europe. I say "problem" in quotation marks as it is only regarded as a "problem" by the twisted bereaucrats running the EASA project. Personally I see no problem in pilots/operators being foreign licensed as long as said licensing is ICAO compliant. As I'm sure most others do. However we have this situation where this political project and the people behind it harbour this childish grudge against anyone freeing themselves from their expensive, politically motivated, overburdened regulatory system.

I find it bizarre that EASA has seemingly been given free reign to ride roughshod over pilots and operators to such a shocking extent. But there again it is a political agenda, and such ways seems to be the way of things in Europe these days...

Just my thoughts

Smithy

[4x4]

Captain Smithy....could not have said it better....you are a Wordsmith, Sir. :ok:

[WestWind1950]

To continue this logic of building walls, the EU pilots would be the ones getting screwed the most if the FAA came up with these nonsense regs or went further and said only US citizens could get FAA licenses or fly N reg aircraft.

FrankR, this has NOTHING to do with citizenship! The only citizenship problem is having to be a citizen to own an aircraft, no matter what country it is registered in. The FAA only allow US citizens to own their aircraft, as you must be an EU citizen to own an EU aircraft.... so no difference. What's wrong with that? And this odd method of having a "trust" owning it... I don't trust trusts. :hmm:

I'm an American citizen, living in Europe for over 40 yrs now and follow the rules where I live! I could "own" a N-reg aircraft if I wanted, but I couldn't own a D-reg. It's the law, big deal. I accept it.

Much has been said on this subject already but I will only add that it's perfectly normal for a country to want the aircraft flying in their airspace to confer to their rules. The whole thing is about where the aircraft "operator" is based and where the aircraft is stationed. When I first arrived in Germany years ago, I had only one year to change my car drivers licence to a German one. So, why SHOULDN'T that be required of aircraft as well? Even the FAA says that when flying/operating with N-regs in other countries you are to adhere to the rules of that country (sorry, can't find the §§ at the moment, but it's in the FAR'S).

I think some of you are really going overboard with your attitude. All walks of life have restrictions, rules, laws, etc. and sometimes we just must adhere to them. With the EASA rules we all were given the opportunity to comment and give our 2-cents worth to the process, a very unusual deal! If you didn't take advantage of it, then shut up! If you didn't know about.... well, all the flying press was full of info over the past years and the already existing organisations did their best to act in all of our interests.

But, there were 27 countries to put under one system... everyone wanting THEIR rules in the law. NOT an easy task (and no, I am not with EASA! I've just followed the process). You win some, you lose some.... that's life!

So, I had to finally get that all out of my system.... sorry 'bout that folks. :p

[Aware]

What I am a bit confused with, if one had a CAA ATPL which is lapsed, how long does it then take, for you to reinstate it without the need for all the exams flight tests etc. Surely your not back to the beginning again are you ?

[mad_jock]

It goes on yoru IR if you have held one within 7 years is realtively easy to get things current. Outside that you have to do the exams again and training as required etc.

[BillieBob]

Just to clarify, if the IR has expired by more than 7 years you will need to do just the IR exams again (not all of the ATPL exams) and complete mandatory refresher training, which, according to the Regulation, means doing the initial IR course again.

To get an EASA ATPL, you must also have a minimum of 500 hours multi-pilot time and (I believe) a valid MPA type rating. There are still a significant number of people holding CAA national ATPLs who do not meet this requirement and will only be able to convert to an EASA CPL. For them, it will be necessary to pass all of the EASA ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations in order to get an ATPL back again.

[FrankR]

Hey Westwind,

If we're being honest here, I'll restate the obvious. What burns the American (and other non-EASA pilots) is that it takes a major effort for us to convert our license.

It is NOT anything like getting a "German drivers license. To be "fair" all you EASA pilots should have to pass 14 exams of total bull**** before you can fly in the US.

Many professions have these absurd hurdles that must me jumped over and through. The only reason is to restrict the "free trade" of professionals.

FR

[peterh337]

as you must be an EU citizen to own an EU aircraft.That's false, in the general case. For example anybody can own a G-reg.

but I couldn't own a D-regHow do you know?

I had only one year to change my car drivers licence to a German one.That's right but cars are different. You need to be locally registered because

- road tax is a huge tax raising tool (aircraft over 2T IFR pay route charges which are collected according to the airspace you overfly, by Eurocontrol)

- foreign reg cars avoid paying parking tickets, camera generated penalties, and (if you don't stop after an accident and leave the country before they find you) prosecution for any offence short of one that is extraditable (which basically means something like killing somebody) - whereas in aviation ICAO provides for international enforcement; in 2003 I busted a French TRA and the CAA went after me on behalf of the DGAC

- the linkage between road tax databases and insurance databases and number plate databases is not international, so those checks would all fail, etc etc whereas in aviation the airport where you didn't pay the bills soon goes after you

The only reason is to restrict the "free trade" of professionals. That, plus it is the result of established institutions looking after themselves. If you set up an FTO to teach the IR, it is hardly going to turn round and say "we are not going to teach this theory; it is 90% bollox". They will get stuck in and prepare the study material, etc.

These people are only human. Same with ISO9000 and all the other scams which pervade business in the EU. All the people working in those fields have families to feed, etc. The other day I got a quote for a couple of little items. I replied with an email saying "please ship them, order number is XYZ". They would not accept that because their ISO9000 quality manager requires each customer to explicitly specify what he wants to buy :ugh: Large chunks of our society are now stuck in this s**t and aviation is no different; in fact aviation is brilliant because the "s-word" takes care of just about any objection.

The "fault" lies at the top, for allowing these monsters to come into existence. No good blaming EASA. Blame those who set it up, and then didn't oversee it closely and allowed it to grow out of control.

As regards safety, read the AF447 reports. If that plane was on the registry of the Peoples' Republic of Upper Volta, it would make sense. But because it is (was) F-reg, nobody could believe it and you got hundreds of pages on p p r u n e analysing why it happened.

[1Bingo]

In a nutshell, the EASA certification process is archaic and expensive. You fix that and the bitchin' stops.

Bingo

[mad_jock]

No its not, its just not what all the N reg drivers want to hear.

If you had from the beginning been in the system you would give a flying toss about the current changes in the system becuase it really doesn't effect you at all if you are already IR'd up.

ATPL, two types IR, SEP, FI my life has not change in the slightest with the coming of EASA. And my training only cost 35k cpl/ir/mep/fi/mcc.

[Thomascl605]

Well you started all of this b*llocks about 14 exams, with no coherent argument, you just said 'do it' . As for your own personal evaluation I couldn't have written anything else better about you myself. I'll give you this, you are very insightful into your own personality.

[mad_jock]

No I didn't it was you lot bitching that you couldn't be arsed doing them. Because they were so so hard and difficult.

The fact is that brickies and the like with no secondary education passes managed to do them all the time. There are thousands of pilots a year pass these exams with no great stress.

Stop bloody moaning and get them done. And stop doing this pish "I know you are I said you are but what am I" bollocks.

You don't have a clue how I run my cockpit or for that matter what I am like as an instructor or line trainer.

[WestWind1950]

would you "children" stop fighting and get back to flying! The rules are the way they are and we had years of time to comment and get ourselves involved in the process. If you didn't take part, then tough. And every country has the right to make rules for its airspace and if all 27 (or whatever the number) of EASA member countries adopt these new regs, then that's the way it is. :eek:

Oh, and part of the problem, as I've read here somewhere, is on the FAA side, not only the EASA.

And don't forget Part-FCL pilots... when you get your new EASA licenc, it will probably have a new number (again!) and you will have to redo the FAA validation.....

[NuName]

WestWind1950 would like the children to stop fighting, I wonder who forces him, or her, to read this thread anyway. I don't like the Weaver thread, so guess what, I don't read it.
There are two very different camps of pilots who are affected by the rule changes being discussed here, those who fly for pleasure and those who earn their living flying foreign registered aircraft. I think all would agree that to be able to fly the foreign aircraft the appropriate licence had to be obtained by the individuals, clearly the aircraft existed first and the employment opportunity came along thearafter. This actually happened to me whilst living in Turkey with 90 hours on a UK PPL. I dutifully went to the states, got myself a CPL/IR, CFII/MEI and returned to Turkey only to be told that they would not issue a work permit for that occupation. I returned to the UK and was offered a job on a "N" registered aircraft, no substitue for a bit of luck.
My other bit of luck was that I then went down the UK CPL route and that might well be my salvation in the future. I really feel for the guy's who could loose their livelihood due to the new reg's.
IMHO the purpose of this thread is to publicly discuss the merits of introducing rule changes that will have no significance on safety. The only changes being pilots, ab initio or otherwise, being locked into a training scenario that is inefficient and expensive with some previous choices removed.
The only effect all this is going to have will be European FTO's being able to operate without the competition of oversea's FTO's and the various European airspace administrations will enjoy more revenue.

Increased safety, NO. Increased jobs, NO. Increased expense, YES.

[mad_jock]

Its never been about safety, its always been about control over the aircraft and crew based in a country.

With the success vconverstions of owners and pilots going FAA the NAA's were loosing control over large percentages of the fleets perm based in thier countries and also the pilot groups.

Can nobody see why they can't allow that to continue?

[NuName]

An interesting perspective. No safety considerations, just control. Sounds very sinister.

[Pace]

Of Course EASA has a right to control its airspace and the aircraft and pilots in it but that is NOT the argument.

If N reg was a fairly new practice which EASA had discovered and was trying to plug fair dues.
In certainly UK law established legal practice becomes protected in law itself.
If you pinch a piece of field and extend your garden into it after a period of time as a garden it becomes a garden in law not a field and so on.

N Reg has without any doubt become established practice in Europe being domiciled here for longer than the EU has been in existence.
Over all those many many years people have found work around N reg in Europe others have purchased aircraft and licences and all within perfect law and rights.

EASA have moral obligations to those people and their livelihoods as European Citizens as well as to insure that anything EASA now does makes as little damage to those people in cost of money, Time, inconvenience and most certainly NOT at the cost of someones job.

As far as EU law goes if EASA bring in any regulations which will remove my rights for work they are breaking existing protection laws.
Its no good saying take six months off my work would no longer exist.
Maybe I am not a good home studier and need to be in a full time study course.
Why should such a conversion cost me money???
If I am a pilot with only a few years to retirement how will I claw those costs back in the time I have left compared to a young pilot?

That lot is just a taste and EASA know they have problems so lets see what happens

Pace

[mad_jock]

Yes but that is the fundemental reason why they have brought the changes in.

And why it doesn't matter what the arguments etc are brought forward about safety etc they won't stop until they do return control to the local NAA for locally based aircraft and pilots.

And now that there system and philosophy have been publically slagged off and personal insults dealt out for the people involved, they will be even more determind to finally stop the practise or at least make it very difficult and more expensive than just going local anyway.

Apart from anything else they won't want a rerun of the last 2 years.

So the cogs are turning and the political games are being played to eventually get things into a corner.

They really don't care about jobs going etc and being taken to court, all they have to do is string it out for a few years. Even if they do loose the tax payers stump up the dosh and they have got what they wanted anyway.

PAce there argument will be is they haven't removed your ability to work on N reg aircraft. You can still work anywhere in the world.

The fact is that if you are successfull blocking this it will mean that they will loose control over virtually all private aircraft in the EU. All that will be left will be the public transport and AOC machines.

No private pilots because you can start commercial training using an ICAO ppl.

There have been loads of regulation changes in the UK which have meant people have had to requalify and or get additional licenses.

The ones the spring to mind are the gas regulations which meant the all the plumbers that had been working for years had to get Corgi qualified . The Sparkys went through the same thing a few years ago just so they could fit a plug in a kitchen or other wet area. Finacial advisors also went through the same process.

Its hardly unique that long standing industry's have been turned on there heads and everyone had to gain further qualifications before being allowed to do what they had been doing for years in the UK.

[WestWind1950]

NuName
I really feel for the guy's who could loose their livelihood due to the new reg's.

why? all they have to do is follow the regulations being required for the country they are working in. If that means doing some exams, then that's the way it is!

Oh, and I read here because I find the discussion quite entertaining actually... :E

Pace
N Reg has without any doubt become established practice in Europe being domiciled here for longer than the EU has been in existence.
Over all those many many years people have found work around N reg in Europe others have purchased aircraft and licences and all within perfect law and rights.

were you able to fly N regs in Eastern Europe before the iron curtain fell? surely not. Now they are "westernised" and they have new regulations, often based on what other countries already had in affect. I'm sure you can still not operate pure N reg aircraft commercially, or perhaps even privately, in Russia or many other countries. Europe has been very lenient so far!

And I remember the FAA, back in the 1980's and 90's trying to "force" N-reg owners to have the aircraft spend maximum 6 months outside of the USA! The FAA wanted that, not the European's. Who knows, perhaps it hit the books yet has been overlooked all these years.

[mad_jock]

I think they can westwind. Keep a N reg in Russia etc. Even if it was illegal the type of persons that own said hardware over there isn't looked at to often.

Its the same in the Middle East as well. Shiek ma bob can keep a N reg for as long as he likes. Mear mortals would have to go local after 6 months.

Not that its really an issue because the whole reason for having these machines down there is to escape the bloody place so they tend to move around alot.

[NuName]

Whilst making the argument for EASA I hope you all remember that any foreign licence holder flying a foreign registered aircraft in any airspace, including that of EASA land, is required to obey the regulations of the: country of registration, country of licence issue and the airspace the aircraft is being flown in and apply the most restrictive. Therefore, full control is available to all national airspace in all countries of the world. This has always been the case and always will be. Any incidents or violations have always been rigorously followed up with appropriate action.

[mad_jock]

Any incidents or violations have always been rigorously followed up with appropriate action.

That only happens if they can get there hands on the pilots. Which is the reason why the pilots leggit if possible ASAP after anything happens.

All the local authority can do is send a letter to the other authority if they don't reply they can only hope they can pick the pilot up on another visit.

The idea that the US, China, Russia and a raft of other countrys would deport anyone to the EU to face action about infringments is quite frankly in the realms of cloud cockoo land. Try and find a case when its happened.

We arn't actually making the argument for EASA we are making the argument that local aircraft and local pilots are under the oversight of the Local NAA. Most I would suspect would agree that EASA is a monumental screw up and isn't going to do the EU aviation industry any good at all. In fact the conclusion of getting the N reg issue sort once and for all might actually be the thing that keeping it together. Most countrys in the EU have been trying to stop it for years and they have been the nearest to succeeding yet.

Doesn't change the fact though that I agree with the policy of local aircraft and local pilots are under the oversight of the Local NAA. That aircraft resident in a country and flown by the resident pilots should have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else.

None of the loophole of we have payed a bloke in Delware to own the aircraft in trust on our behalf and you can stick your rules up your arse cause we don't like them.

[NuName]

mad_jock, you have my attention now, I obviously need educating and you would seem to be the best guy to do it.
Can you explain to me just what the "Delaware loophole" is, and what advantages can be had, maybe I'm missing out on something. Especially as I fly the "M".

I don't know what experiences you quote from but I have witnessed a FAA licenced pilot have his ticket suspended for a year for a violation incurred in the Middle East. To find a pilot of a particular flight is the easiest thing in the world, were it not, the international freedoms we enjoy would simply not exist. Deportation is a bit extreme, what kind of violation did you have in mind for this? Licence suspension or revoked would seem to work well enough in most cases.

Aviation by its very nature is an international activity, there will always be foreign aircraft with foreign pilots around, to make some arbitrary reg's about what constitutes being based or resident in Europe is a load of baloney and everyone knows it. Freedom means less regulation not more.

[mad_jock]

The N reg arn't allowed to be owned by someone thats not resident in the US. So they pay a company to hold the plane in trust on there behalf. The US company is allowed to own the aircraft in the US.

They wouldn't be allowed to own it under their own name if resident in the EU. So they use the loophole to be able to have the N reg.

I have never heard of a UK pilot ever getting there licnese suspended there have been cases of folk loosing medicals for metal health reasosns.

There have also been cases when folk have agreed to hand in there licenses to reduce the penalties in court but I have never heard of anyones license being suspend or removed. And in all honest in some cases it is deserved. Maybe the slightly crazy vet Maurise Kirk i think his name is, has had his license suspended but thats the only one I can think might have.

In europe they they tend to fine the **** out of you or the company for any breaches locally and keep the aircraft until its all sorted out. You have to be taken to court and be sentenced for any penalties apply. I belive the FAA can decide punishments etc without having the case go before a legal type.

The airbus at Brum that flew for 10 miles at NPA mins then eventually landed after using the wrong DME is an example. Crew legged it on the next flight out and it sat there for weeks with the AAIB investigating.

[NuName]

Oh, I see, I already knew this but when I hear about "loopholes" I always think there is some advantage to be had. Obviously in this case there is not, its simply what is necessary to have a "N" reg aircraft if you are not a U.S. citizen. Of course this is available to anyone who wishes it, right?
As far as the control subject goes, nothing will get fixed because, quite simlpy, nothing is broken.

[Pace]

Mad jock

You really are missing the point ! N reg is a very long and established legal practice in Europe where many have invested a lot of time and money,
There is a whole industry grown around them.
In. Free society it is normal to beat the competition by offering something better, cheaper and more attractive. EASA could have done that ? But no they use the old Russia tactics of beating and cheating people into submission.

EASA have not only a legal but moral obligation if they now want to change things to do so which is at least is minimally damaging in time and money to those involved.

Grandfather rights. Difference exam etc !
There is no sensible or practical reason why I as a N reg Captain should have to sits six months of ground studies to do what I already do!

May I add exams full of irrelevant rubbish.

Differences exam maybe ( air law)

You are wrong ! If I take six months off on ground studied do you think my job would still be there when I came back?
I am sorry but EASA are fully aware that they are on very sticky wickets with EU law if it goes to court!
I can assure you it will if the bi lateral comes to nothing which I am equally assured it won't !

Pace

[mutt]

So if my boss decides to spend the summer in his European home, will all of his crew flying a nationally registered aircraft be required to have JAA/EASA licence?

What is the EASA definition of your base?

Mutt

[S-Works]

If I take six months off on ground studied do you think my job would still be there when I came back?

There you go again. What makes you think that you need to take 6 months of work? You already claim to be an experienced ATP. There is no compulsory ground school, no compulsory minimum hours, its self directed study and direct application for the exams. You cover the JAA specific bits that as an FAA ATP you may be hazy on and sit the exams. My Canadian friend who is a Captain for Air Canada did it studying 2 evenings a week and sat the exams in 2 sittings when he was over here. First time pass.

Pace, with all due respect you have fallen for the hype about how difficult people think the exams are. For an experienced ATP they are just not that difficult.

[His dudeness]

EASA have not only a legal but moral obligation if they now want to change things to do so which is at least is minimally damaging in time and money to those involved.

Not sure if I should agree. Actually the European parliament has decided to regulate. Why? Possibly - but that is a guess - because some nat. Authorities wanted them to do so. And, to the uneducated such as members of the EU parliament it sounds "good" to regulate. 'Not regulated' has nowadays the flair of 'wild west'. Really bad...

Now, what EASA proposes / has decided and the way to take influence is a different matter, anyone that does work for a living and tells me he has been able to really check what has been proposed and then comment and - most important - that his input had a real impact: hats off. Last but not least: it did not matter that probably most of us think that the regulation is a total overkill.

[Pace]

His Dudeness

But of course lets please not forget That this duel licensing will never happen!
As stated by EASA it is NOT their wish. Their wish is a Bi Lateral on FCL with the USA.
Most of us doubted those EASA claims but they appear to be true.
We will have to await the outcome of the high powered meeting this june to see where this is all heading.

Pace

[S-Works]

Let's see what the FAA has to say to abondoning the 6/6 in favour of annual proficiency checks which is part of the EASA requirement for the bi lateral.

The US and Canada were able to achieve an agreement as the have similar training regimes and similar currency requirements.

I personally think you are hanging your hat on the wrong peg pace, but please feel free to throw it back at me later if I am proved wrong.

I just don't think there is enough common ground to allow a simple 1-1 exchange.

[mad_jock]

I would imagine Mutt that the fact you have a work permit for the country of registration will be enough.

[mutt]

Mad Jock, I thought that it was the residence of the operator and not the pilot? So my question still stands, if the operator moves to Europe for the summer, has he got to use EASA licensed pilots?

Mutt..... (I already hold a JAR licence for aircraft that Im flying, so not really affected by this, but curious)

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Also consider this

If I fly an M reg aircraft, I lose my EASA medical but have a validation for the M reg aircraft on my FAA ATP & Medical.

I've done my 14 exams, I know the local procedures.

Will I be legal

[mad_jock]

It depends how you define operators residence.

I don't think they have even defined by what an operator is yet.

And it might take a couple of test cases to sort it out.

They haven't started down that road yet. And its one of the things I suspect that people are now trying to find ways of getting there aircraft deemed resident in a none EU country.

I would have thought that having a principle who is a national of a country outside the EU and has pilots flying his aircraft which have work permits for that country will push the likely hood of it being none resident.

[mutt]

It will be interesting to see how this works out.

Although they are not a corporate aviation operator, I am curious about operators such as UPS Europe who appear to have US registered B757 aircraft flown by US crews based in Europe. Do they rotate the aircraft / crew in order to avoid having them classed as "based in Europe"?

Mutt

[Pace]

Bose

I suffer with a condition kniown as FidgyChondria which means I can only study for a period of 10 minutes before rushing off to do something more exciting.
I have to be literally strapped down and sedated to last longer especially when the subject material lacks any motivation for me :)

But yes if its not looking good after the June meeting I will reconsider.
On principal that is hard as I do think we are all pilots and at some point all this willy waving and protectionism has to come to an end with a worldwide acceptance and standard on FCL so that pilots can be free to work wherever.

Having to get licences which have NO relevance to the aircraft flown is madness

Pace

[S-Works]

Having to get licences which have NO relevance to the aircraft flown is madness

The thing is I agree with you totally. The difference between you and I is that I am pragmatic enough to understand the politics of envy.

But I did tell you nearly 5 years ago this was coming. I was told it by the people who are forcing it through and I was told to my face that they would get there way. You can't push against that sort of determination.

Unfortunately with politics people will pay you you lip service and do exactly what they want behind your back. This is just another example I think.

However as I have said many times before I am happy to be proven wrong.

[Pace]

Bose

I do not disagree with your warnings 5 years ago :{

One thing I am sure of is that what we have on the plate now will not be what we have on the plate by 2014.
Reasons for that?

One my contact on the EASA negotiating team advices me to do nothing re licence conversion. If he was not hopeful he would say do the exams.

The FAA are putting Big names into negotiations in June and both sides are active in adding a FCL Bi Lateral to the existing Bi lateral signed up months back.

What will that Bi Lateral Be? I am equally sure it will NOT be give me your licence here is mine ;(

Should all that hit a brick wall EASA are still faced with Laws which they know are flawed (fact)and will not take testing in the EC courts.

If they still want the existing to work they will have to make some pretty big allowances or scrap the whole dual licencing thing.

The sad fact is that EASA had a chance of bringing both systems much closer than they are now but inisted on clinging onto a complex and expensive way.
They could have copied the FAA system with a few changes and saved the tax payers a fortune but instead have regulated to strangle the industry.
There is No evidence that Pilots trained in Europe are any better than those trained under the FAA system so why?
Partly the eastern influence of control and wanting people to fly in people carriers not GA. That part AOC OPS have missed EASA are not their friend either.

But lets give them the benefit of the doubt and see if they really are true to their word before part 2 the courts! I assure you that is on the cards too:E

Pace

[S-Works]

Like I said, lip service. Neither do I think that anything will be won in the courts.

But we shall see.

[Thomascl605]

If I could offer my advice then I would say to stop panicking. For those already employed as pilots flying on non easa licences in Europe then I am reliably informed (by our national CAA) that we can keep flying.

[dizzen]

Sorry to come back to this thread, but - if I read this well - this impliments that if an operator, be it an AOC or private enterprise or even person, would be not EU based, the crew does not have to carry an EASA license?

[peterh337]

Sorry to come back to this thread, but - if I read this well - this impliments that if an operator, be it an AOC or private enterprise or even person, would be not EU based, the crew does not have to carry an EASA license? Yes.

IOM based operators should be OK, IMHO.

It is a reasonable assumption IMHO that in the simple case of the owner flying himself, he is the operator, and in this case an M-reg won't help unless he actually lives on the IOM.

And I remember the FAA, back in the 1980's and 90's trying to "force" N-reg owners to have the aircraft spend maximum 6 months outside of the USA! The FAA wanted that, not the European's. Who knows, perhaps it hit the books yet has been overlooked all these years. Do you have a reference for that?

The 6 months still applies but only to aircraft owned by some specific corporate structure. This is almost never used for European ops.

You are forgetting that the majority of light aviation around the world is N-reg :) Europe is just a little spot on the globe. The FAA system dominates, with its pilot licensing, aircraft certification, etc.

What is the EASA definition of your base?There isn't one, and it doesn't look like one is coming, either, according to my enquiries. The law is now on the books, and you are stuck with the useless wording. It will be for the national CAAs to implement this (or ignore it) as they see fit.

The N reg arn't allowed to be owned by someone thats not resident in the USFalse.

It needs to be owned by a US citizen or green card holder, or by a company which is 75%+ US shareholder owned.

Where the American individual(s) reside is irrelevant.

Many US citizens live in Europe and elsewhere and own N-regs directly, without a trust.