How long did it take and how did you? [Archive]

Davjet

21st Jun 2012, 13:34

Good afternoon fellow ppruners,

I was just curious to know how long and how some of you managed to get hired in this very difficult and tricky corporate sector.

I'll start; I got my FAA CPL/IR/ME back in late 1999 and ever since have been trying to get in the door but without any success at all.

I've called, emailed and visited various operators throughout the UK and abroad. Some operators have been helpful and accomodating and some not so.

With heightened security it's not easy anymore to just rock up at an airport and see the operator, and contact information is almost impossible to come by with a lot of private operators.

Now I realise as I have the above licence I'm limited to foreign reg operators here but these number quite a few on the US, Cayman, Bermuda and Isle of Man register. Some of the operators have minimums on hours for insurance reasons and some don't. Aside from this I have heard a lot of Pilots in this sector who are dual rated, but find they rely and use their FAA licence more than JAA. I believe there are opportunities out there but I missing them.

It can be a very worrying predicament to be in having invested in training and not being able to obtain a job especially after completing training over 10 years ago.

I however have learnt a lot about myself in that I am versatile and adaptable. I've had to work in various industry sectors and realised I had skills I would never have known about had I not, but the bug to fly is ever present so the desire to fly is what drives forward.

Anyway I would like to hear, learn and take advice on how you did it. You can pm me too if you want.

Cheers,

Davjet

S-Works

21st Jun 2012, 14:39

As you will now need to be dual qualified to operate in Europe under EASA, your chances of getting a job on FAA quals in Europe are now basically non existent.

Most of us working in the GA sector are dual qualified for this reason.

There are some out there with their heads buried in the sand thinking that they are going to be saved at the 11th hour from complying.....

If you want to work as a pilot in Europe, get yourself dual qualified.

deefer dog

21st Jun 2012, 18:48

Their is no requirement to be dual qualified if the operator of the aircraft is outside of the EU. It matters not one jot where the aircraft is based, who it may be crewed by....it is dependant on where the OPERATOR is resident. If the operator is not an EU resident and the aircraft is not EASA registered, ANY IACO licenced pilot with an appropriate validation will be good to go.

Aruba, IOM, Bermuda, Cayman, American etc etc, but operated by (for example a Swiss resident) will not contradict the meaning of 216/2008 when flown by non EU licenced crew.

S-Works

21st Jun 2012, 19:32

Keep yor head buried Deefer. I believe you to be wrong. We will ave to see what the first prosecution looks like.

mattman

21st Jun 2012, 19:56

Don't you worry Bose, when the judge convicts me, I will tell him how the EU has turned a a honest tax paying citizen of the EUSSR into a criminal, this should start me off on my life of crime, because I have learnt from the best in Europe that crime does pay.
This is when I become a mastermind criminal and will start a cartel of illegal FAA and all other ICAO pilots that will pillage and rape the EU landscape of virgin hostess while we make the limp fisted EASA fly babies watch as we burn and steal from your hovels.

We will smuggle our corporate passengers from bussniess meeting to bussiness meeting as the charter Wally's scream murder from the church steeple.
I am now a sky pirate, the scourge of the sky, plundering my way through the European sky

Davjet

21st Jun 2012, 21:07

Xbose

Perhaps you're right about being dual rated, I would have done so 10 years ago had the CAA not been ridiculous about certain restrictions to meet a class one medical, which they've now only recently loosened. I'm much older now and the time, the expense to sit 14 exams with various obligations to meet is very difficult. I'm sure I speak for a lot of Pilots with just an FAA licence.

Not to bring up the EASA scenario here, but do you really think that the ruling will definitely go ahead with all the problems being faced in the Eurozone at the moment which may just keep escalating??

Anyway I was just looking for advice on getting employed, the reason for my post, I know there are Pilots just flying on the FAA or other foreign tickets.

Davjet

S-Works

21st Jun 2012, 21:14

It's already in the basic regulation and is law. What has not been clearly defined yet is the line arou d operators and crews. It is my belief from talking to the CAA and various other NAAs that I deal with, that crews will be required to e dual qualified. How it pa s out at this stage is gong to be interesting to watch. I have no axe to grind, I fly N and EU registered aircraft and am duel qualified but I do think that a lot of people are going to be hit by this.

Davjet

21st Jun 2012, 21:31

bose-x

Well if it does it does there's nothing anyone can do about it, but I feel for those who have been flying for many years on their foreign licence and couldn't perhaps get a JAA licence based on similar reasons to mine (medical) but are splendid, skilled and professional. It's worked fine for years without any problems or issues.

But again with respect I'm trying not to get involved with the EASA issue, just want to know how to get in however long I have till EASAs ruling takes effect, close to that time I'll evaluate what my options are.

Cheers

Davjet

Davjet

21st Jun 2012, 22:44

Mutt

Thanks for your kind response, yes I do have less than 1,000 hours, I'm around the 600 hour mark, and I am a British national. I guess haven't been in that right place year etc.. for 10 years, have tried to be but I guess my timing is consistently way out. :) Oops just realised you're in the ME.

Davjet

HS125

22nd Jun 2012, 06:04

It's never been easy, and personally, I think it's much harder than it used to be. The issue of an EASA license as discussed has become a moot point, getting or training towards one doesn't [like any other license or rating] guarantee you anything but will equally do you no harm; just look at the chain of questions posed by the human remains department you've probably faced a million times designed to make every capable candidate ineligible:

What license do you have? Who was it issued by? Where did you train for it?
How many Hours do you have? IFR or VFR? In which seat? Piston/Turboprop/Jet? How heavy was it? What kind of operation? When did you last fly it?

It's often not what you know but who you know, so, probably the best step forward is to get yourself out there, I don't know of anyone at this level who's gotten in front of someone, let alone a job by sending out a CV. You really need to go and meet people. I accept that's not easy either but think outside the box, Don't accept no as an answer when trying to do this, look at non flying jobs that put you in the industry and fly regularly even when you're not employed as a pilot.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 08:13

The recession has crippled a lot of things for the past 4-5 years with no sign of bright skies ahead.
Europe is plagued with its on going Cancer of a massive public sector costing a fortune we can no longer afford.

That Public sector has regulated us silly loading costs in all directions onto the Industry.
Regulated for that Public Sectors own interest and Job prospects not our own.
AOC ops so regulated and expensive to operate that no one wants to buy their services.
Their reaction? To demand that the regulators remove all competition. Great for the regulators as more work for them but a false path for AOC ops to follow.

Our Industry especially in these hard times needs DEREGULATION and regulation based on safety aspects not political protectionism.
Years ago there was a lot of work out there. People were desperate for crews at any cost the days of milk and honey.

Regardless of Bose THERE ARE LEGAL issues with employed pilots flying N reg and the new dual licence requirements which run contrary to existing EU law.

If EASA are nothing but a bunch of con artists (quite possible) and the Bi Lateral is just a manipulation smoke screen then a legal challenge will go to the EU courts with every chance of success.

EASA know their poorly compiled regulations are flawed and it maybe that only a challenge will force them to change track.

I agree with another poster that networking is your best option its really about someone liking you and wanting to help.
Persistence is the other ingredient.

But the way Europe is disintegrating and self destructing and financially collapsing who knows what lies ahead for any of us EASA licensed or otherwise as it is not good.

People who think EASA are saviours of future prospects for the health of aviation are equally sticking their heads in the sand Bose!!!

Pace

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 08:36

People who think EASA are saviours of future prospects for the health of aviation are equally sticking their heads in the sand Bose!!!

If that is aimed at me then I suggest that you withdraw it as you know it to be untrue.

Not once have I ever stated that EASA are fit for purpose nor that these regulations are fair. They are not, they are just another nail in the coffin of GA driven by narrow minded and petty politically motivated individuals.

I am however pragmatic enough to realise that they have naff all chance of being over turned regardless of what people may think. That line is generally rolled out by those who don't have dual qualifications and are either to lazy or unable to gain them.

The simple fact is that if you want to work in Europe in Aviation going forwards then you comply or quit. This means being dual qualified if not in an EASA type.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 08:57

Bose

My comments were a direct response of your own comments regarding sticking heads in the sand.

There will be a legal challenge! That is on the cards and the chances of it being successful are very strong!

What EASA are doing contravenes EU law in a number of directions I do not want to detail here.

I ask you why EASA extended the deadline to 2014??? I ask you why 6 crucial MEPs who were opposed to the N reg dual license requirements agreed to vote the whole bandwagon through!!! on promises made.

EASA KNOW that what they have in place regarding employed pilots flying N reg will not succeed through the courts as they stand as they contravene EU law. They know that as fact!

Pace

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 09:01

I wish you the best with that crusade pace. I think you are wrong but only time will tell.

Thomascl605

22nd Jun 2012, 09:07

Bose, I had a PM stating that you never passed your theoretical exams for JAA when you converted from FAA, and that it is alleged that you used a back door country in Eastern Europe to get a national licence which then somehow became JAA. Is this true ? if it is then I suggest that if you care so much about the new EARSA licence that you won't mind sitting the 14 written exams and do the flight tests. If this is untrue then I suggest you print evidence of your exam passes for all to see.

I had another PM from GEP. Thanks for that, I am not a F***Head as you say and quite frankly I was surprised to see a PM of that tone. You simply have to understand that you have been wrong on some counts in your recent postings about the Olympic slot system, and also I question your apparantly recent vendetta towards FAA Pilots flying in Europe. I strongly support your other campaign towards the idiot, and hope for your sake that you obtain the necessary conviction that you desire.

Doubtful if I'll post again, there are a few sane pilots out there who can see that was EARSA are trying to do is wholly wrong, illegal and discriminatory and can destroy careers, families and actually faith in the profession.

Good luck to the rest of you that are still putting up a fight.

ATB

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 10:23

Bose
This crisis could tear the eurozone apart, warns IMF... and Spain WILL need bailout says EU finance chief | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162938/This-crisis-tear-eurozone-apart-warns-IMF--Spain-WILL-need-bailout-says-EU-finance-chief.html)

This is the reality of the huge threats in Europe at present which will effect all of us whether you hold an EASA licence or not!
How ridiculous to require a pilot with all the ICAO required licences to a huge cost in time and money to attain licences which have NO relevance to the aircraft been flown and infact have no legal status on that aircraft.
We all naturally guard our own corner, what suits us. I respect your knowledge and posts in many areas but like MJ you come over as a N reg hater.
You may be right in your outlook for N reg in Europe that does not make it right!
Take my own position! I probably have another 5 to 7 years flying N reg jets. 14 exams comprising mostly of irrelevant rubbish taking 6 months on a full time course or as a distance learning!
The problem with distance learning is you have to be motivated ok with a 20 year old setting out on his/her career not so easy for older pilots expected to do all this rubbish just to do what they are already professionally doing a good job of!
Hard to be motivated when there is no solid reason for this stupid requirement.
Hard to be motivated just to extend your flying a handful of years.
Flying due to over regulation gets more and more expensive in not just money but time especially for self funding freelance pilots.
Do we want to dig into our pockets even further.

I do not for one second suspect your own dual licences were achieved other than by the hard conventional route we have talked of that!

Having said that I know of many pilots holding dual licences who have achieved them by jumping through holes in Ireland etc in the past.
Often those guys are the worst at damning N reg pilots

Put yourself in others shoes and ask why should Pace want to comply with ridiculous regulations at huge cost to him?
If I am wrong then one of you guys can have my position because it wont be worth it all for a few years.
I will just get a VLA for sunday afternoon flights out of a field somewhere.
But as they say the show is not over till the fat lady sings

Pace

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 10:37

Bose, I had a PM stating that you never passed your theoretical exams for JAA when you converted from FAA, and that it is alleged that you used a back door country in Eastern Europe to get a national licence which then somehow became JAA. Is this true ? if it is then I suggest that if you care so much about the new EARSA licence that you won't mind sitting the 14 written exams and do the flight tests. If this is untrue then I suggest you print evidence of your exam passes for all to see.

Ah, you have been talking to *** then..... ;)

I did my exams with the UK CAA, sat at Gatwick and my training with Bonus Aviation at Cranfield. So sorry to disappoint you, but I have sat the exams and completed the required training under JAA. :p I don't need to prove anything to you. However if you really have a bee in your bonnet come along and look at them in person. Much easier when you look someone in the eye.... ;)

Thanks for that, I am not a F***Head as you say and quite frankly I was surprised to see a PM of that tone.

Sorry, but I have never sent you a PM that I am aware off and certainly not a rude one.

I do not for one second suspect your own dual licences were achieved other than by the hard conventional route we have talked of that!

Thank you Pace.

Often those guys are the worst at damning N reg pilots.

Let me make this clear, I am not damning N reg pilots, I am one and proud of achieving that. However I was also pragmatic enough to realise it's days were numbered as a sole licence and converted several years ago.

Like I said, I wish you well in your quest, but as I have said many times, I think you are pissing in the wind.

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 11:02

Again you pair won't accept I don't hate N reg and if I had a job that required me to get a FAA ticket I would go and get one.

What we will do though is contradict you whenever you state that it will never happen and that you will mount a rock hard legal case and turn it over.

There have been thousands of qualified workers in europe who have had to requalify to meet some new law. In the UK plumbers for working with gas, electricians to continue working, finacial advisers,medical reps. All of whom have had long working proffesionals who at the end of thier careers had to jump through all the hoops that the youngsters have to to continue to work.
Then there is the issue that most are self employed so your not even covered by most employment law.

We really don't think you will get anything changed. And even if you do manage to turn it over this time that won't be the end of it until they eventually do stop the practise.

As bose-x states you are pissing in the wind.

Thomascl605

22nd Jun 2012, 11:04

Bose, why would I wish to look you in the eye ? If your exam passes are legit then scan and post them and maybe everyone will believe you.

As for the PM, I am well aware it didn't come from you but from GEP as my posting states.

I'll leave those N reg haters of you to swap spit and choke your chickens over those hundreds of pages of toilet roll regs from EARSA.

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 11:15

Thomas, why would a post private information an anonymous forum!

If you a really that keen to catch me out at least have the courtesy of looking me in the eye rather than behind anonymity. Please feel free to pm me for a meeting place.

Thomascl605

22nd Jun 2012, 11:23

Because there are more than myself who would like to see. I don't see the problem, there's been plenty of private stuff posted on here recently so if you are that proud of your exam passes then show them.

goldeneaglepilot

22nd Jun 2012, 11:30

Thomas - why the attitude, if you re read my posts then you will see that I quoted what I had been told by the DTI they later ammended their published documents to clarify the position.

With respects to insults, can you remember your own post? I PM'd you and suggested if you want to trade insults then do it via PM...

And who really believes a word you say after you getting d*cked about your lack of knowledge for olympic slots - thicko !

My on forum reply was:

Wow, what a nice chap you are. Just been having a read of your other posts. I'm on my knees now bowing to to the great aviation God... You do have such a way with words, if someone has a different opinion to you.

Perhaps you should read back through a few of the previous posts and realise that following the uncertainty and doubt created by the DfT's own people they clarified things.

Perhaps you would be prepared to pass your opinion on the VFR slot allocation at Southend, and the other airports that will probably announce it during the next two weeks? Or was I drinking too much cider? Perhaps if you send me your email address then next time I'm told something I can run it past you for your advice and counsel.

Yep, I'm thick, in fact probably the village idiot, but do I care - NO. At least I can hold my head high with out the brand of obnoxious.

Toodle pip old chap, off now to munch on another turnip!!

Also you very quickly came back - after you said it was doubtful that you would ever post again on here.

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 11:30

Like I said, anyone who wants to see them is welcome to pop along and take a look. Not like I am refusing to show them now is it? You may also want to take the time to have a quick glance at my logbook, medical and UK CAA Examiner authority at the same time just to make sure you have done full due diligence on behalf of the forum.... :p:p

goldeneaglepilot

22nd Jun 2012, 11:34

In my book Bose-X credibility and integrity is beyond question. He does what he says, he's got the t-shirt and the licences to prove it...

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 11:56

These threads always go the same route

Some one comes on and asks whats happening.

You boys come along and say its never going to happen we will fight it to the end they can't do it because we will mount a huge legal challange they are all thick bastards they won't know whats hit them. They keep changing the dates because they are scared of us.

Some of us alleged N reg haters come along and say well actually thats a load of bollocks. They have been trying to do the same thing since before JAR. Tried it a bit with JAR but it didn't work and have now had 12 years to plan the next attempt.

We then get personally insulted for having an opposing view.

Mean while pilots being selfish bastards that they are all round europe will be saying one thing and doing another. JAR licensed pilots will be thinking hey I can get a bit of N reg action so will get there FAA tickets a couple of weeks if that and a sim check.

Some of the N reg guys will be saying I am not doing it. But then realise that they won't be able to feed there kids when it comes off so get the books anyway. Then discover this isn't half as bad as they thought and keep stum. And when the call comes out to pay for a fighting fund they slink off thinking I could get the LHS out of this winner.

Then when the time comes and the call goes out for pilots to unite against the Evil oppressor of EASA. The vast vast majority will just ignore it. And it will end up with 50 odd guys fighting the cause then discovering that some bastard has taken there job while they can't work. They then find out that because they are self employed thats just tough luck. Then realise that the super dopper legal advice they were given was bollocks. Then start packing the bag for Nigeria.

Any european operator would have to be clinically insane to invest any money at all in a FAA only licensed pilot. The pilot would also have to be insane to self finance any training as well unless they fully understood that it was 99% certain that they will not be living in europe if they get a job.

Thomascl605

22nd Jun 2012, 11:59

Well, what a nice chap you are GEP. Your PM stated

Hay **** head, you want to trade insults do it in private via PM's. Thicko - you dont know me from Adam you illiterate opinionated ****...

I think enough said there.

Bose, you may well be an examiner, it was alleged though that you had bypassed the 14 theoretical exams etc to get there. So are you going to publish your exam passes or not ? If not, is this because you bypassed the exam system to convert your FAA to a national CAA licence in eastern Europe which then became JAA ?

Remember, other people have PM'd me claiming this to be the case. I really couldn't give a t*ss but I think you need to confirm your exam passes, so that we all know if you did pass the JAA theoretical exams.

Davjet

22nd Jun 2012, 12:06

Wow, my thread seems to have gone somewhere else! :)

Anyone need a pilot? happy to meet/chat.

Davjet

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 12:06

I couldn't show you proof that I had passed my theory apart from showing you my ATPL.

Davjet honestly nobody is going to invest in training until all this bollocks has been sorted out.

And if they do have an opening its 2 weeks and done and dusted during a type rating in the US to get a EU pilot qualified to fly a N reg. And then their arses are covered.

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 12:09

Bose, you may well be an examiner, it was alleged though that you had bypassed the 14 theoretical exams etc to get there. So are you going to publish your exam passes or not ? If not, is this because you bypassed the exam system to convert your FAA to a national CAA licence in eastern Europe which then became JAA ?

Ha! Priceless!! I like your style. Like I said, anyone who wants to come and look at them is welcome. Drop me a PM and you can come and meet me in person and carry out any inspection you desire.

There are enough people on here who have already done so to invalidate your argument.... :ok::ok:

I may just point out that its the remit of the weak mind to turn to personal insult & blackmail when they are no longer able to discuss rationally.......

goldeneaglepilot

22nd Jun 2012, 12:09

Thomascl605 -

As I said no doubt of Bose -X credibility, all exams passed with good grades, no sidesteps or leap frogging as accused. Thomas your now moving into the areas of defamation... Hope you have the proof and pockets to defend yourself. An email claiming xyz is unlikely to be enough to defend you against a claim for defamation, but then you know that with your demonstrated super intelligence.

Just to add, unlike others I have seen the documentary evidence and it stacks up, so in law easily defined as defamation, the only questionable thing is quantifying the amount of damages in the event of a claim.

Perhaps Thomas, you might like to consider a rapid public apology (and a deserved verbal attack on the alleged source of your information)??

Off again to munch another turnip - toodlepip old chap!!

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 12:17

Bose MJ

I have had a long chat this am with my contact in the negotiation I will not go into the details but there are big unforeseen problems which were not foreseen by either EASA or the FAA.
Basically what is in place cannot go ahead without co operation from the FAA.
Read into that what you wish!!

What I will say is nothing will happen by 2014 expect 2016 and I will bet you both £500 each that I am right

Are you both up for making easy money :E ???
As for Bose and MJ I like you both even if we cross swords on the N reg so probably wont take my winnings off you anyway ;)

Pace

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 12:18

GEP don't go down that route.

Its always looked pish when folk come out with that nonsense on the board especially as it won't affect Bose one little bit what thomas thinks of him.

Any way its far better Thomas continues the way he is doing. Just makes the N reg world appear to be frequented by a load of derranged plonkers.

Thankfully for the rest of the N reg lot Pace is about to prove that there is some none plonkers. I do actually have alot of sympathy for Paces situation but disagree with his view that its not going to happen.

No Pace I am not suprised there are huge problems. We did sort of say that would happen didn't we? So FAA and EASa didn't see any problems but PPrune did its was obvious that there was going to be problems which is why they used that as carrot to get the legislation through. And I really don't think that the negotiating team will be able to access the true plan by the people that engineered all this.

Nope not a betting man but it will be intresting to see the next play by them. I very much doudt it will be morally fair I might add.

Thomascl605

22nd Jun 2012, 12:26

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 12:26

I have had a long chat this am with my contact in the negotiation I will not go into the details but there are big unforeseen problems which were not foreseen by either EASA or the FAA.
Basically what is in place cannot go ahead without co operation from the FAA.
Read into that what you wish!!

What I will say is nothing will happen by 2014 expect 2016 and I will bet you both £500 each that I am right

Erm, we did tell you this.... My understanding is that part of the problem is around unreasonable demands from the EASA team. Stuff like wanting the FAA to adopt annual Examiner LPC checks for IR and requiring type ratings in the same was as EASA. SOmething the FAA are unlikely to agree to. It may well drag out to 2016 or even later for any agreement to be if there is going to be one. That does not remove the fact that the regulation is in place and the maximum derogation is 2014 with most states not seeking to extend it that long. So you really want to be keeping your fingers crossed that an agreement is made sooner not later.....

goldeneaglepilot

22nd Jun 2012, 12:27

Pace - you bet MJ the wrong thing, if you had bet that the loser would have eaten their own body weight in battered haggis MJ would have taken you on. Had you lost MJ would have eaten yours anyway.

You dont understand what motivates MJ do you?

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 12:32

Ah, that old chestnut. I'm sure that Bose is a fine upstanding qualified pilot. Like I said I couldn't give a t*ss either way about his training, it was pm'd to me by someone else. Fair enough if anyone else manages to curcumvent the 14 ridiculous exams in Eastern Europe. I am sure that many have.

I am actually.... :ok:

Mind you, don't get me wrong, if I had found someway of beating the system as believed by **** and not doing the exams, I would not be coy about it, I would be rather pleased with myself and telling the world about it!!

Alas, I had to go about it the good old fashioned way and do the distance learning with CATS (who are actually very good if a little disorganised!).

I have never actually met anyone who has achieved this fabled Eastern European 'dodge'!!

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 12:37

I would love a battered haggis supper with curry sauce or a fish supper from the chippee next to the habour in Peterhead.

Its 10 months and counting since having access to even a crap chippee never mind a good one.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 13:08

GEP

Its a bit like politics we hammer each other in public for effect but have a laugh and a joke and blow kisses at each other at the bar? (not sure with the kisses thing with MJ though? especially with a kilt and hairy legs!!!)

No one has taken me on in my Haggis bet :E

MJ instead of paying me the bet money a bit of cosmetic surgery and I could send you in to do the exams for me?

Pace

4SPAR

22nd Jun 2012, 13:33

Dear DavJet, let me offer a response to your original question.
In the words of Churchill, "Never give up!"
Perhaps my story will help you since you've mentioned your discovery of personal skills and determination along your journey thus far.

I was ten years past starting my quest to be a pilot and sitting on my first 300 hours. My act of desperation was to go back to school to become an aircraft technician. My theory was that:
1. I'll be able to support my family as a technician
2. I'll use diversification to pursuade someone to give me a break
3. I'll be so close to the aircraft that I want to fly that I'll have to persevere because there was no way I'd spend the rest of my life turning wrenches.

That was a long time ago and I can't describe the countless ways my gamble has paid me back.

I've proven myself worth the breaks that I've been given as a low time pilot by performing numerous maintenance tasks that kept operations safe, customers satisfied, cost down, and even kept some air ambulance flights from failing and compromising our patient's welfare.
While enjoying great flying jobs I've been invited to do side work as a lead technician on two amazing new aircraft manufacturing projects. One of them led to getting trained to be a test pilot for experimental and developmental flight test ops.
Throughout my career I've been more likely to identify maintenance compromises and to properly relay maintenance details when ops needed to respond to things I couldn't take care of by myself.
Most importantly, it gave me the chance I needed to get my first break. That would have been worth it all.
Other keys have been being willing to go places that others haven't been willing to go and being willing to work harder than others would.
You sound like you really want this and that's good; because its worth it!

Hang tough and never give op!
Best regards
Mike
FAA and CAAC....because China rocks!

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 13:43

Dave

China rocks!

I am on my way!!! just one question are you sure?:E

DaveJet

One bit of advice ;) Eat breakfast every morning! 3 square meals a day and do not follow your Captains example especially regarding women!

:=

Pace

mad_jock

22nd Jun 2012, 13:45

Its the hairy arse and back you need to worry about Pace.

If as you can fit in a citation cockpit. The surgery required to get me to pass for you will be significantly more than cosmetic.

deefer dog

22nd Jun 2012, 14:15

bose-x

I quote:

Keep yor head buried Deefer. I believe you to be wrong. We will ave to see what the first prosecution looks like.

I ask:

Bose, please explain why, for example, an N registered aircraft operated by an American resident company and flown by an FAA licenced pilot in Europe will be in contravention of 216/2008, and why you think he is likely to be prosecuted.

If you think the BASE of the aircraft is in anyway remotely connected to the legislation, which I suspect you do, perhaps you might also want to explain why there is no mention of it in the legislation.

Davjet

22nd Jun 2012, 14:24

Thanks for the advice PACE and 4SPAR, I will never contemplate defeat even when things look unlikely. My biggest fear is failure, so failure is not an option. The purpose of my thread here was to learn how others have got there and perhaps use some of that as angle and motivator to help me along the way. I'm a positive chap and up for challenges or a challenger ;)

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 14:26

Deefer. It is my understanding from the CAA that it is the crews home that is going to be looked at. So if they are European residents then they are caught by the legislation regardless of which offshore paradise the aircraft may registered to. This is how they are planning on exempting visiting crews from overseas being caught up.

Can I suggest you reserve the aggressive tone for others. As I have said, I have no axe to grind, I am just observing on the way it appears at the moment. If you think you have grounds to circumvent the legislation, go ahead and knock yourself out as it matters not one jot to me. I am just a curious bystander.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 14:45

Bose

The legislation cannot go ahead as laid out without changes in the FAA legislation so stalemate!
Unforeseen problems as I hinted at.
That is not to say the FAA will not give its blessing and play ball but there is a lot we do not know about behind the scenes.
It is not as simple as 2014 ready steady go.
2016 at earliest my bet still stands!!!
Poorly thought out legislation springs to mind.:E

Pace

S-Works

22nd Jun 2012, 14:49

Pace, I am not sure why you think that the FAA need to play ball. EASA are merely requiring that for a pilot to operate in EASA airspace they need to have an EASA licence with the correct ratings for the type being operated. This has no effect on the FAA requirements.

That legislation is already in place. It is how it is enforced that is unclear.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 14:57

Bose

Hot off the press genuine and not easily apparent but cannot go into further detail. 2014 is while official very unlikely and accepted as such.
As I said read into it what you like! But FAA no play ball no one play ball!

That legislation is already in place.

It maybe in place but as potent as a castrated bull as things stand.
As stated it was not readily apparent to EASA but is now a problem.

Pace

421C

22nd Jun 2012, 17:56

It is my understanding from the CAA that it is the crews home that is going
to be looked at. So if they are European residents then they are caught by the legislation regardless of which offshore paradise the aircraft may registered to. This is how they are planning on exempting visiting crews from overseas being caught up

It's not the offshore registration itself which is relevant, it's the residency or establishment of the operator. If the operator of a Third Country registered aircraft is not resident in the EU, then the crew don't need EASA licences, wherever they are resident. IMHO your CAA contact has it wrong.

The crew residency thing would make no sense. Lots of 3rd country long haul airlines have crew resident in the EU. But whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. The EU law is pretty clear in this respect.

Of course there will be cases when "who is the operator?" and "where is this operator resident?" are not crystal clear. But if the operator is clearly not EU resident then the crew residence doesn't matter. But, to be fair, your contact may have meant that if the crew are resident in the EU, they would scrutinise the operator status more carefully.

BTW, Bose is a mate of mine and I would write about my knowledge of his qualifications if it wouldn't seem like pandering to an accusation/demand/whatever that I believe merits a brief reply in idiom I am not willing to write in a public forum.

deefer dog

22nd Jun 2012, 21:00

This thread has drifted but seems to have centred on what the FCL aspects of 216/2008 actually state. So, without aggressive tones, not that were any detected after a re-read of my first post, please let me explain why my head has no reason to be buried in the sand (even though I DO actually have dual (not duel) licences).

EASA have no legal remedy or right to insist that aircrew of non EU operators be required to hold EU licences when they fly in European airspace. Think it through ......just imagine how it would play out if ALL operators throughout the World would be required to crew their non EU registered aircraft with EU licenced pilots before embarking on a trip to sunny Southend on Sea!

Neither does EASA have any right to determine which nationals that ANY operator employs. The nationality of the crew is not even mentioned in the legislative text, and neither is the residence of the crew. What you may have missed old chap is that the legislation centres on the residence of the OPERATOR. The BASE of an aircraft is not even mentioned, so forget that avenue.

What may not be known to you is that EASA has no voting rights in ICAO...they are not a State, but merely the representative of a collection of states. This is a sore point for them, and despite their attempts to address this they have thus far been disappointed with the results.

I am happy to bury my head in the sand, and continue to operate a large number of M, VP, N, A5, X7 and any other Non EASA registered aircraft with crews from ANY place or country with ANY ICAO licence all the time that they are OPERATED by a NON European resident. (that does not mean flown by the way). When you get a spare moment I suggest you look up what the word resident actually means, and how it fits in with European COMPANY law. Once you have done that please take the time to read the actual text of 216/2008 and then come back with a more informed view.

What is completely inescapable is this...non EASA licenced pilots will still be operating in EASAland in non EASA registered aircraft for MANY years to come....and one of the largest operators of private jets in Europe shares the same legal opinion!

Off to bury my head.

Pace

22nd Jun 2012, 21:24

DeeferDog

I cannot disagree with what you are saying and that is close but can confirm there is a major problem for poor old EASA something the poor old regulators missed

What may not be known to you is that EASA has no voting rights in ICAO...they are not a State, but merely the representative of a collection of states. This is a sore point for them, and despite their attempts to address this they have thus far been disappointed with the results.

The above is also correct

Pace

deefer dog

22nd Jun 2012, 22:01

Thank you for your kind words Pace, not that I need them. EASA might rule the European Union, but they still have to stomach the uncomfortable fact that they will never rule ICAO.

ICAO rules the air waves! EASA aren't even in the game.....they aren't even a member of the team!

deefer dog

22nd Jun 2012, 22:29

Pace, sorry to deflate your post, but I honestly don't think that the EASA rule makers missed anything at all. In fact I think they did a very good job of presenting the pigs bladder of a mission that they were tasked with.

Any careful reading of the document highlights that it was very "delicately" structured, and with the guidance one assumes of sound legal advise. As is usually the case it is the omissions that one should look for; references to "owner," "beneficial owner," "aircraft base," "operating crew," and the suchlike are most notably replaced with an emphasis which rests on the loosely translated term "operator."

My bet is that EASA will rue the day that they defined what this term actually meant....several years ago, in a long and forgotten document.

peterh337

23rd Jun 2012, 22:09

This topic is a regular one on all the aviation forums.

Every once in a while some new development pops up and it is trawled through again e.g. here (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/488115-austrian-caa-faa-licenses-remain-valid-n-reg-europe.html)

On the basis of "knowing your enemy" (was it Rommel?), one of the key questions to which nobody I have ever met (and in that I include the top of the UK CAA) knows the answer is why EASA used such obviously ambiguous terms in its "operator" "based in" etc rules.

If you want to produce a law which can be enforced (and normally that is the intention :E ) then obviously you don't do that.

Look at any English law - it is much more precise.

I don't think lawyers got anywhere near the EASA wording. Maybe they might have done at some later date but they didn't get a chance because FCL was rushed through Comitology and through the Transport Committee very quickly, using false promises of a treaty with the US being "just around the corner".

I have been N-reg since 2005 (have a US CPL/IR and a UK PPL/IR) so I am well familiar with the FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) which regulatory body employees everywhere, and individual axe grinders everywhere, have been spreading, in order to keep some kind of a lid on the N-reg (& derivatives thereof e.g. IOM) community, which they were powerless to do anything about.

FUD works and is highly cost effective, but obviously its effect is not exhaustive because anybody sufficiently motivated will see through it and still go ahead.

IMHO the anti N-reg bits were a "private project" by some people within EASA and they knocked them up and pushed them through.

The proposed wording has been "out there" for several years so anybody who really wanted to achieve that objective could have said to EASA that this is not going to work because it is too vague. So why didn't they? I think it suited all the national CAAs who, with the exception of Denmark, never showed much interest in killing the N-reg community.

On balance I think Pace is right and it was all a huge c0ckup. A lot of pilots around Europe have been contacting their CAAs asking what the wording means, and the indications are 100% universally that nobody is interested in discussing it let alone enforcing it.

The problem is not enforcement but insurance. We now have a "law" on the books which an insurer could use to his advantage if the claim was big or contentious enough. That is why I did the JAA IR - those papers are not even valid to fly my own aircraft (under FAR 61.3 which is what matters) outside the UK :ugh: And I have to pay ~£150/year for renewing the pointless paper...

Thomascl605

23rd Jun 2012, 22:57

Peter, I preferred your earlier post this afternoon, an interesting history lesson. I don't know why it's disappeared ?

Regarding insurance it's a no brainer and they couldn't give a stuff as long as you are type rated and current. I hope that clears that one up.

goldeneaglepilot

23rd Jun 2012, 23:07

Thomas - so much interest in Bose-X ratings experience and ratings, real distraction from the topic being discussed? Pray tell us all your licences and experience plus type ratings, I am all ears for one?

S-Works

24th Jun 2012, 08:20

Regarding insurance it's a no brainer and they couldn't give a stuff as long as you are type rated and current. I hope that clears that one up.

For a man who gets aggressive and personal when he sees stuff that he does not agree with you must be very sure of your facts to be so assertive. So perhaps you would care to share with us the basis of your assertion?

Whilst Peter and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things, I do think that his views on the insurance angle are very valid. I have spoken to a number of insurers about this and the response so far is they are keeping a watchful eye on things.

goldeneaglepilot

24th Jun 2012, 10:00

Its not the insurance company that is the real issue - Its the loss adjuster that they employ to try to minimise what they pay out. If he finds there is a loop hole then the payout will not be made. If a licence does not stand the test of legality then irrespective of how well qualified the person is in another countries licence system it will be deemed that the pilot was not licenced for the flight and a payout will not happen on a claim.

Often fighting such a decision in terms of legal costs can make it commercially silly to even start the fight. The claim through the Courts can cost a lot more than the potential payout. Sometimes principle is too expensive to fight for.

It might not be what people want to hear, but it is the cold face of reality.

Pace

24th Jun 2012, 11:29

I was told by a broker that the EASA requirements are a territorial regional thing as the licences required have no bearing status or validity on a N reg aircraft and as such have no bearing on the insurance requirment to fly the aircraft.

EASA cannot bring these requirments into play without consent and changes made in an existing agreement which affects EASA and the FAA . So as stated they are stuck without the FAA playing ball and making changes to accomadate EASA wishes.
2014 will not happen

Pace

goldeneaglepilot

24th Jun 2012, 11:43

Am I to assume then that anyone has a right to overfly anywhere in the world in an aircraft? If they are licenced correctly for the aircraft country of registration?

EASA cannot bring these requirments into play without consent

Thus the local country (or group of countries) of overflight has no right to say what they demand in terms of licences or consent for the particular flight? Also the local country has no legal right to place any conditions that they wish to make upon a flight and its crew?

In some parts of the world they are so extreme that if you ignored what they demanded you stand a chance of being killed!!

Why in France are there local restrictions on the operation of aircraft into certain mountain airports for all crew, including foreign registered ones - if the crew have not completed a local course? With the argument being preented an FAA crew in an N reg aircraft could ignore that because the FAA have not agreed to it.

Just for the sake of clarity (Thomas) I am not a N reg hater - I hold FAA licences (as well as others) and fly N reg aircraft based in Europe.

I know its taking the point to the limit - BUT...

peterh337

24th Jun 2012, 12:31

Its not the insurance company that is the real issue - Its the loss adjuster that they employ to try to minimise what they pay outIndeed, but it is the same thing.

Am I to assume then that anyone has a right to overfly anywhere in the world in an aircraft? If they are licenced correctly for the aircraft country of registration?Each country has total sovereignity over its own airspace. ICAO permits that - otherwise nobody would have signed the treaty :)

But that (overflight freedom without a permit) has always been true for the "civilised" world. There are many countries which cannot be overflown (even by private flights) without an overflight permit, and this keeps the "overflight agents" in business.

EASA has not changed that in any way.

Some countries impose maximum pilot ages even for overflight (obviously this is meaningless) and most impose equipment carriage requirements for their airspace (also meaningless unless externally detectable e.g. Mode S).

I think the EU anti-N-reg regs (EASA is not really relevant anymore; they just wrote them and pushed them through by hook and by crook) can be enforced throughout the EU - simply because every EU member state "has to" obey Brussels. Well, to the extent that anybody obeys Brussels; the southern European countries tend to not bother too much.

But what has probably happened is that EASA was unaware of some previous agreement with the FAA. This is totally unsuprising, if you look at the raft of treaties (http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/international/bilateral_agreements/baa_basa_listing/) with individual countries. On top of these there would have been lots of less formal agreements with the FAA for example covering the conduct of flight tests.

In that respect, the vague EASA FCL wording would have suited the national CAAs and they would have deliberately not drawn attention to any existing agreements, and left EASA to fall into a hole at the very end.

Most European countries like to keep previous deals with the FAA going. The FAA had always honoured them, AFAIK. JAA tried to kill these off; I was once told by a JAA director (2005) that all these treaties were dead as of 1999 but clearly JAA got thwarted totally on that.

Re insurance, I have spoken to the top man in the top firm in the UK GA scene and they said that in a situation like this, where even the CAA won't give guidance, they would not avoid a payout. Another insurer echoed this.

The other side of looking at this is that if you want to cover your bases 100% there is only one option, which is the only option on the table, which will be the only option on the table for a good couple of years at least, and that is the full JAA IR. Which is why I did mine. It probably cost me £10k but the thing I resented most were the banal and almost totally irrelevant theory exams. It's not suprising that while ICAO IR conversion routes do exist, there is no credit on the exams. This whole JAA business is a job creation scheme.

goldeneaglepilot

24th Jun 2012, 14:06

Re insurance, I have spoken to the top man in the top firm in the UK GA scene and they said that in a situation like this, where even the CAA won't give guidance, they would not avoid a payout. Another insurer echoed this

Perhaps you can get him to put it in writing and publish the letter here.

What's said on the phone / in a bar / over a coffee and what happens on a claim are two different matters. Personally I would hate to try to argue what you have said in Court, the conversation would go along the lines of "Peter says the top man of the top firm says" doubt it would stand up.

Also does this top man actually manage the syndicate? - If he says he does please ask him to explain to you how Aviation Insurance works with respect to underwriting and the terms they offer the cover on.

421C

24th Jun 2012, 15:36

one of the key questions to which nobody I have ever met (and in that I include the top of the UK CAA) knows the answer is why EASA used such obviously ambiguous terms in its "operator" "based in" etc rules. Where is the mystery? It seems pretty obvious that the wording was chosen, errrr, because it achieves the intended result (ie. imposing aircrew regulation on the basis of the residency of the operator rather than the owner or crew or where the aircraft is based)
If you want to produce a law which can be enforced (and normally that is the intention http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif) then obviously you don't do that. The concept of an operator in aviation is a long established one. It's only in this FRA debate that it's been elevated to some amazing undefinable mystery.
I don't think lawyers got anywhere near the EASA wording.
I think the exact opposite. I think some rather good lawyers drafted it.