More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!

[deefer dog]

From Fly Corporate, another interesting article on the Part NCC debacle!

(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)


05/01/2015

In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.

In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.

In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.

What operational structure to set up?

As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.

First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.

The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.

And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?

Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.

A level playing field?

As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.

Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.

This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?

Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?

The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.

The responsibility of the EU

Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.

This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.

While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.

European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.

Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney

[flyingfemme]

The playing field will never actually be level while EASA rules are so sloppily drafted and national authorities are given leeway to exempt and decideindividual cases.
The EU has a worrying tendency to declare a "law" with no detail and allow the rules to develop far too slowly for real people to plan their lives and their business.
I don't know what the solution might be, so I left.

[His dudeness]

At least bloody NetJets and the like will love it, cause no one in their right mind will buy a new airplane for a new private operation any more. NCC is in todays form a mess and a nightmare. The fun part is to try to get any real info from the LBA about on how, when and what shape to implement the sh!te...

Complex operation: less than 20 pilots etc, one is non complex, unless you operate with B/Prnav...WTF ? 18.5 years to retirement, I just hope I make it there soon enough....

[Beaver100]

Quote from the Swiss Lawyer below,
"This European intrusion into the competence of the State of Registry, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs"

So, the State of Registry for Third Country Operators are having their competency questioned by none other than EASA, this must be a joke !

The benefits of being N reg, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM etc are that this kind of tripe shouldn't be allowed to happen. Can they please either independently or collectively put an end to this rubbish and go forward with keeping the business of thousands of loyal companies that have kept them in jobs.

If the requirement is to maintain two different sets of rules for state of registry and NAA / EASA then the question of responsibility in case of accidents etc, makes the whole process unworkable and illegal for the insurance process.





From Fly Corporate, another interesting article on the Part NCC debacle!

(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)


05/01/2015

In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.

In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.

In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.

What operational structure to set up?

As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.

First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.

The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.

And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?

Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.

A level playing field?

As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.

Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.

This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?

Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?

The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.

The responsibility of the EU

Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.

This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.

While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.

European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.

Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney

[mattman]

When you give a retard a box of matches!!!!!
They will figure how to light themselves on fire!

[asdf1234]

It's really not that hard. Take the SOR regulations, compare them to the ICAO and EASA regulations and comply with the most onerous of the the three. It's a paperwork job to compare them and the end result is your operation will be as safe as it can possibly be.

Fly safe :)

[HyFlyer]

EASA is full of lawyers and bureaucrats.

It's in both these groups interests and long term survival and growth to make any system impenetrably complex and requiring massive administration. I'd say job well done.

What they don't have is clear identifiable and measurable objectives related to the real-world and against which they retain or loose their jobs. Unlike the rest of us who are subject to their shenanigans.

there's the rub...!

[DirtyProp]

It's really not that hard. Take the SOR regulations, compare them to the ICAO and EASA regulations and comply with the most onerous of the the three. It's a paperwork job to compare them and the end result is your operation will be as safe as it can possibly be.

Fly safe :)
:=
The correct word is "legally".

[Beaver100]

The State of Registry is the legally binding authority along with their regulations under their laws. This is what is paid for through these authorities by the aircraft owners, and this is what is legal and correct from an airworthiness, operational and regulatory viewpoint. If this is to be undermined or if two sets of regulations are having to be followed, then it ultimately clouds the area of flying legally should an accident occur.

Also, are you saying then that Ops manual templates currently being worked on by some private register CAA's are likely to be useless, and that another countries more onerous CAA Ops manual regulations need to be followed ?
I find this highly unprofessional both towards the operators concerned and to the extremely well qualified professionals currently writing the templates, for use by the operators on their private registries.

[asdf1234]

I think any half decent flight departments look at the regulations as the minimum level they need to achieve, not the target they must strive to achieve. As soon as the industry as a whole stops looking at what they have to do "legally" and instead concentrate on what they must do to ensure safe operations we will see less moaning by individuals about EASA standards. Look to ICAO, EASA and your SOR; determine which of the standards are most onerous for each area of operation and aim to exceed them. If you're aiming to tick the boxes you really aren't running a safe operation.

[flyinbeaver]

What an extraordinary thing to say! So you're suggesting that by fully complying with every applicable EASA regulation is not a sufficient standard to be safe???????

One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......

[Daysleeper]

So you're suggesting that by fully complying with every applicable EASA regulation is not a sufficient standard to be safe

Safe is not an absolute. The regulations set the overall minimum standard acceptable to the overall society they are in. At the very light end there is deregulation because society says the risk is (almost) entirely yours so bon chance! At the heavier end there is more regulation because society bears more risk for your actions. Biz av and NCC sits somewhere odd in the middle. So if all you are aiming for is being compliant...then you are probably not achieving the safety level your clients expect.

[Beaver100]

The main threat of safety is when you start operating outside of your Aircraft State of Registry laws / ANO etc. This will inevitably lead to more incidents and accidents and be a less safe operation. There have been many Operators over the years where this has indeed caused safety incidents - operating outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules, therefore essentially uninsurable as a result.

Any half decent flight department with zero safety violations over many years will of course question why they are now seemingly being ordered to operate outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules (by EASA, a non ICAO entity), and as a result rendering every flight likely uninsurable. This is clearly not acceptable.




I think any half decent flight departments look at the regulations as the minimum level they need to achieve, not the target they must strive to achieve. As soon as the industry as a whole stops looking at what they have to do "legally" and instead concentrate on what they must do to ensure safe operations we will see less moaning by individuals about EASA standards. Look to ICAO, EASA and your SOR; determine which of the standards are most onerous for each area of operation and aim to exceed them. If you're aiming to tick the boxes you really aren't running a safe operation.

[Pace]

One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......

I think that is a questionn which many ask ? My guess it's more about the EASA jobs and to justify the expensive wine bar expenses than us and satisfying the whims of some people in high places
Safety ? Think that's way down the list

[DirtyProp]

One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......

Simple.
To justify their ridiculous paychecks, and to show the paying public that "they are doing something".

[Contacttower]

The main threat of safety is when you start operating outside of your Aircraft State of Registry laws / ANO etc. This will inevitably lead to more incidents and accidents and be a less safe operation. There have been many Operators over the years where this has indeed caused safety incidents - operating outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules, therefore essentially uninsurable as a result.

Part-NCC and the rest of Regulation 965/2012 for EASA Air Operations is the law in all EU member states, in the same way Part-CAT is for AOC operators. It automatically superceeds and overrides all equivalent legislation at national level. The ANO in the UK will be updated in 2016 to reflect this when NCO/NCC comes into force. There isn't really any question over its legal status.

Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.

That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.

[Beaver100]

It might be law in EU states but we are discussing non EU states of Registry and their associated laws / ANO etc, such as FAA, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM, Aruba etc. None of these are EU states and each has its own separate legislation. The Owner / Operator putting their plane on these private registers has to adhere by law to the State of Registry, and pay all associated fees for registration, airworthiness etc.

When it is demanded that you adopt legislation from outside the State of Registry you are of course going to be extremely concerned that this is therefore going to register your insurance policy void and flight operations illegal.

Part NCC may well supersede legislation at a national level for EU countries, but definitely not for non EU countries. If it did it is a slippery slope and it won't be long before EASA try to turn on the other legislation issued from these registries (if they don't stand up to them now) EASA simply don't have any legal right especially as a non ICAO entity to do this to a non EU State of Registry.

It comes down to legal oversight of the non EU States of Registry. These states are not part of the EU, EASA is also not a member of ICAO, so in the event of accident or incident if these laws are forced on non EU aircraft registries then you are likely uninsured, as you have adopted legislation from a (non ICAO) EU body for an aircraft registered outside of Europe.
Rather like for example CASA poking their nose into these registries and trying to force you to adopt say some of Australia's ANO / legislation into your own because someone at CASA told you to do so. The moment you step outside the remit of your own non EU State of Registry and their legislation you will eventually run into legal difficulties.







Part-NCC and the rest of Regulation 965/2012 for EASA Air Operations is the law in all EU member states, in the same way Part-CAT is for AOC operators. It automatically superceeds and overrides all equivalent legislation at national level. The ANO in the UK will be updated in 2016 to reflect this when NCO/NCC comes into force. There isn't really any question over its legal status.

Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.

That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.

[Contacttower]

Beaver, I agree there is some lack of clarity around the issue of where the operator resides and the associated implications of that. But practically speaking, the question that should be asked is whether the operator is resident in the EU or not. If they are, then EASA rules apply, regardless of the registration of the aircraft. If outside the EU...and the aircraft is not registered in the EU, then you escape...

The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.

It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.

[Beaver100]

You are right to suggest for Operators to wait until early next year.
But what difference does Operator location have to do with anything ? It's nothing to do with safety then.

If implemented the non EU States of Registry will have Operators who are being forced to comply with a quite unintelligible EASA (non ICAO) ruling based on Operator location, which will likely leave themselves wide open still to the very real threat of insurers not paying out in the event of accident or incident. Adopting such a ridiculous ruling from outside the State of Aircraft Registry will lead to more safety violations due to having to comply with two different sets of legislation. The question will be asked as to who is the real state of oversight ? A legal minefield and one that any insurer will surely use to it's advantage.

Ops manual templates issued by the professional aviation personnel at these non EU States of Registry will seemingly be invalid then, and some Operators forced to adopt an EU states Ops manual template instead.













Beaver, I agree there is some lack of clarity around the issue of where the operator resides and the associated implications of that. But practically speaking, the question that should be asked is whether the operator is resident in the EU or not. If they are, then EASA rules apply, regardless of the registration of the aircraft. If outside the EU...and the aircraft is not registered in the EU, then you escape...

The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.

It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.

[Contacttower]

I mean the short answer is that operators will have to find a way of being compliant with both - if the two are in conflict I agree there is confusion.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is though, I fly both UK and N-reg aircraft in Europe and as long as one complies with whichever set of rules imposes the higher requirements, you are OK. I've yet to come across a scenario in which the two are in conflict to the point that compliance with both is impossible.

Leaving aside that issue though, it has always been the case that states may apply rules to the aircraft of other states when flying within their national boundaries - the fact that the origin of those laws comes from the EU does change that - it is still the law in those member states as if passed at national level.

I suppose this point could be debated for ever, we'll just have to wait and see I guess...

[Salto]

It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.

How could you know that...? Any reference?

[Private jet]

If implemented the non EU States of Registry will have Operators who are being forced to comply with a quite unintelligible EASA (non ICAO) ruling based on Operator location, which will likely leave themselves wide open still to the very real threat of insurers not paying out in the event of accident or incident. Adopting such a ridiculous ruling from outside the State of Aircraft Registry will lead to more safety violations due to having to comply with two different sets of legislation. The question will be asked as to who is the real state of oversight ? A legal minefield and one that any insurer will surely use to it's advantage.


Perhaps this has been EASA's game all along. "Exotic" registered private aircraft with "local" operators have been a thorn in the side of European regulators for years. (For no good reason may I add, apart from a simple denial of control & power)
Now with compliance becoming a much more complex issue maybe they are banking on operators getting scared of the insurance non-payout consequences of a prang and run into the arms of EASA full registration. :ugh:
Never assume these office boys and girls are just bureaucrats. They are wily & shrewd.

[Pace]

Private jet

This had nothing to do with safety but the whim of certain pressure groups with self interest and powerful individuals with influence on EASA determined to curb the use of N reg in Europe which they had attempted and failed for decades

it is a belligerent nonsense to find a legal way of stopping N reg operations in Europe which had failed many times previously I could even be a fly on the wall and seeing orders given to their legal department to find a way dual licences being the way they came up with.

It will only be stopped when someone with enough money challenges it in the EU courts. the commission have already delayed it because of legal implications and nothing has changed.Saddling working pilots with huge costs both financially and in time! to retain their rightful work for no practical or sensible reason is a nonsense. What happens to those pilots who have worked for decades in Europe legitimately and have only a few years left in their careers? how do they justify those costs and hassle for such a short period of time left other than being forced to be deprived of their livelihoods early?

there are existing laws in the EU giving rights to a livelihood and age discrimination laws to protect people from such abuse of power.

But of course EASA were working tirelessly towards a BI lateral agreement?:ugh: More likely in the bars and restaurants with their expensive expense accounts

Surely the other claim about requiring oversight should be covered in part NCC? So why bother with the rest removing pilots right to work and saddling them with huge costs as individuals part NCC should suffice?Some sort of operating procedures and oversight of those procedures makes sense the dual licensing does not and I hope part NCC is a saving face way out for EASA

i for one hope the British public vote us out of the EU that would cause some major legal problems with this nonsense and frankly that is what it is NON SENSE

Pace

[Private jet]

I agree with you 100%.

[Journey Man]

Pace,

What do you see as the advantages of operating N-registered aircraft as an operator based in a state under EASA jurisdiction?

[Pace]

Journey man

You have it right on the nail ) like any market people will go for the best deal if what EASA offered was so attractive designed to streamline costs in an efficient cost effective way then there would be no N reg in Europe instead there is a mass of N reg
The market dictates EASA don't want that market so regulate the competition out !
We have a strange comparison in London and Black Cabs! Uber moved in with what is a very efficient system and are taking the market! A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.
EASA had the opportunity to take the FAA system and make it better but chose this chaotic regulatory way

Pace

[winkwink]

Absolutely right....about both EASA and Uber.

[Pace]

May I also say that EASA had a blank sheet! Aviation is worldwide and there was a fantastic opportunity here to really bring the worldwide regulations much closer together which in turn would have lead to true and easy BI lateral agreements but no EASA wanted to re write the rule books to isolate themselves
What a missed opportunity and for what ? The mess they have put in place ?

Pace

[winkwink]

Spot on again. Another European laughing stock.

[Global_Global]

A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.Yeah right..... Just like Uber: replace properly trained drivers, who are insured, who know where they go and pay taxes (well most of them ;)) with a bunch of guys who have no idea, dont speak any known language, some of whom are not insured and have a tendency not to pay taxes...

So in your world let's get pay to fly pilots fly our aircraft and let them fight over lowering their salaries, no need for them to learn anything like line training as they have a CPL so that is enough, SMS systems out of the window as price is important.

I rather have an authority that is trying to create a level playing field by getting rid of all the "flagging out" mom and pop operations which are as good as they guy or gal running the place and in a race to the bottom in terms, quality and standards!

Now I know you guys are all smarter than Chuck Yeager with an MBA but the rules are made with for the other SOB's that bend the rules, think they are smarter than they are, think that they operate safer than they are in mind. So get of your high horse and give them proper feedback instead of this Daily Mail like nonsense. :mad::mad::mad:

Rant over and locking the cockpit door :}

[DirtyProp]

Global_Global, please.
I dunno in your country, but in mine (Italy) a taxi driver is a guy who simply bought a fancy piece of paper either from the gov'ment or someone else close to retiring (and paying an outrageous price for it).
Like me coming to you and offering you some money for your ATP, so I can work for the 'lines.

[flyingfemme]

Comparing London Black Cabs and Uber is a bit like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Dhaihatsu. Might do the job most of the time but the devil is in the detail.
London Black Cab drivers have "the knowledge" so they know where they are going all the time. Their vehicles conform to a spec that allows access by the old, the disabled, those with buggies and bags. Most important, they have a safety history that is second to none. I can't ever recall a lone woman being in danger by taking a Black Cab. I would always take a Black Cab in London after dark.
EASA on the other hand.......can't actually think of a good word to say about them. Their "mission" to establish conformity across Europe has failed miserably and introduced yet more red tape and stupidity to an already complicated arena.

[Beaver100]

Interestingly Global Global I agree with your point about low hour jet FO's and pay to fly pilots. It shouldn't be allowed in Europe especially when they have just a couple of hundred hours total when let loose on heavy jets.
But I hate to break it to you it's been going on for many years though in EASA land, with the low cost airlines, pilots on zero hour contracts and paying for their type rating. Many are known to be on the breadline, and many examples of European Airlines can be given. All of these pilots have EASA licences and you only need to conduct a short forum search about how much pressure they feel they are under, and how much pressure more importantly the person in the left seat is under having to fly with them. I read that pretty much it's like flying as single crew for these Captains, tail strikes are common for example along with many other safety issues, these low hour wannabes simply don't have the correct experience levels. Their company SMS certainly doesn't help with their problems. The root cause being greed of the Airline in question and the young wannabe trying to sidestep the proper experience levels.
Going back to corporate the problems remain even with your gold plated SMS / Ops manual / EASA licence that you think solve all problems.
I don't believe that they do as they currently and consistently fail to provide any form of additional safety for these European based bargain basement cut costs to the knuckle AOC ops (there are many) or worse AOC umbrella ops that stick their crews in substandard hotels, constantly flaunt FTL's and either don't put their crews through sim (basic LPC) or ensure its the cheapest and shortest sim course available.
Private Ops generally have a better safety record than the above, the argument that an SMS / Ops manual will improve an already decent and better safety record from bargain basement AOC ops (which most are) these days is flawed. However, I am sure that the high total hours flight time experienced corporate pilots such as Pace etc will implement the SMS / Ops manual should the needless conversion to an EASA licence be completely shelved. But EASA cannot have both, as he rightly states the EU precedent of being allowed to fly in Europe on non EU licences was set years ago, the lawsuits will follow should this right to work cease.

[winkwink]

You live in a pleasant dreamworld. The point about Uber is that they can't avoid paying taxes because every transaction goes through a system which declares what the driver earns. I wonder how many black cab drivers declare their tips.
I think the point which Pace makes is that the European system is neither better nor safer than the non European system. Looking at the operation known as 24/7 or the organ flight to Birmingham or other recent G reg tragic incidents, I agree with him (for I know it is him) completely.
This is in reply to Global, Global but this daft site has positioned it elsewhere.

[Pace]

This is now a Uber versus black cab ? )) I can only go on my experience with Uber which to date is impressive! Clean modern cars with tidy and polite drivers compared to the bone shaker black cabs! No digging around for money and a scribbled out receipt instead an efficient E mail with the route and price! Details and photo of driver and car. Efficient complaint department and best of all at present around half the price! My guess that's to grab the market and then go up but time will tell! Yes you are right they don't have the knowledge and will slavishly follow the GPS ))

Back to EASA this has nothing to do with safety! The statistics don't match a need to close a danger hole with private jet operations in fact statistically private jets operated by professional crew have a better safety level than AOC op jets
I stress EASA had a clean sheet could have looked at things globally and taken the FAA system fine tuning it to suit Europe and maybe even bettered it saving the tax payer a fortune but instead their motivations were political and creative towards their own jobs not the furthering of the health of aviation
We now have this tangled expensive mess to deal with

Pace ( daily M ))))

[winkwink]

The difference between Black Cabs and Uber is....

Price: Uber good value. Black Cabs outrageously expensive
Knowledge: Black Cab drivers spent ages learning "The Knowledge" while Uber drivers rely on a GPS based system called Googlemaps which is more efficient and up to date.

I don't know what navigation system you use. Perhaps it is dead reckoning or NDB. However, most of us now use GPS based systems just as Uber do.
Believe me...it's the future.

Again, a reply for flyingfemme. Apologies that PRUNE doesn't put me in the right place.

[MarcK]

Knowledge: Black Cab drivers spent ages learning "The Knowledge" Not the one who couldn't find the Old Curiosity Shop.

[BizJetJock]

Lots of indignant frothing at EASA here that is completely missing the point: 90% of what they are doing is complying with the ICAO requirements.
As the Overseas Territories have already done. I assume all you people operating VP & VQ are complying with the OTARs? Or are you just ignoring them because the Bermudans and Caymans don't have enough inspectors to do much auditing? Or even have not read them, like one operation I came across recently that thought they only applied to AOCs.
The FAA are planning to implement it all as well, just under the US system it takes about 20 years for any rule changes to go through.
Interestingly, I understand that the FAA are quite supportive of it all, since apparently one of their biggest headaches is all the aircraft flying around outside North America with "N" painted on them that are not compliant. Until they changed the lifetime registration system a few years ago they reckoned that nearly 50% of them weren't even on the register!
And finally, for all those hysterically shouting "it's illegal", I suggest you learn some basic air law. The regulations of the country you are flying in always apply in addition to those of the country of registration. ICAO has no regulatory power, it is merely an agreement between countries to respect most of each other's licencing etc. But every single country is entitled to "file differences", and many do. In fact I think the UK has one of the highest numbers!
So while EASA has many faults, I think GlobalGlobal is on the right track here.

[Pace]

Biz jet jock

That is dressing things up ? I am
Not against oversight of third country aircraft operating in Europe and part M is hard to argue against
I do argue against saddling pilots with holding licences which have no relevance to the aircraft being flown legally or otherwise
Gaining those licences which is expensive for pilots and hardly worthwhile for older pilots who only have a few years to go
This pointless requirement will stop pilots from the right to work and force early retirement on older pilots and for what ?

Pace

[Journey Man]

Only the right to work in Europe, Pace.

Are you not placing EASA AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?

Could you post the source for your statistics on private versus AOC operators safety records; I'm interested in the topic and would love to take a look at the primary source.

Thanks

[Beaver100]

5 minute Google search, I would agree with the statement below 'The best safety record is that of the Corporate category which is run on a non commercial basis'

PRIVATE OPERATION OF BUSINESS AIRCRAFT - A REVIEW

Business Aircraft in Europe only represent 10% of the worlds fleet of Business Jets and Turboprops. They are divided into three separate categories;

1 Business Aviation Commercial

Aircraft flown for business purposes by an operator having a commercial operating certificate( generally on-demand charters) under public transport regs & holding an AOC

2 Corporate Private

Non-commercial operations by professional crews employed to fly the

aircraft.

3 Owner operated

Aircraft flown for business purposes by the owner of the business. This can refer to all types of aircraft from a Gulfstream to a Cessna 150.

• This review has concentrated on the third category- owner operated.
The first question to consider: “Is there a problem in this area of operations?” from the statistics prepared by Robert Breiling and Associates for a 5 year period from 1997-2001 it can be seen that owner operated business aircraft have a good safety record compared with Commercial operations. The best safety record is that of the Corporate category which is run on a non commercial basis.
In 2003 there were 25 accidents and 2004 the figure was 19 with no Part 91 (private operators) business jets involved but 1 fatal turboprop accident.
Does this mean that problems are not present in the private category?
No, must be the answer and Business and Commercial Aviation published a review of 12 years of Business Jet accidents last April identifying the areas most likely to be the cause of an accident ( based on info fro US NTSB, UK Air Accidents Branch, Canada and Australia plus Air Claims )
Whilst not identifying which category was involved the statistics could apply to all at one time or another.
Approach and Landing still top the number of accidents followed by Mechanical, Takeoff and Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT)

Differences of operations between Private and Commercial Private Commercial

ANO JAR OPS1 Remunerated remunerated & owner pilots

Unaudited Audited
Additional layers of regulations

Experience and levels of Competency
Are private category pilots any less competent than commercial?


Not necessarily so as the owner operator will have undertaken a full conversion course on the aircraft and is willing to undergo regular refresher training plus the mandatory checks in accordance with the ANO’s. It is essential that he/ she keeps themselves current on type and builds up experience with the aid of a competent instructor who can assist in the more critical areas such as operations into marginal airfields, ETOPS, MEL compliance etc.

The fact that Commercial operations have a marginally worse safety record than the Private operators cannot be associated with the lower levels of experience in this category and their competency may well be as good.
• Initial / recurrent training

A vital area which is so important for both private and commercial pilots. A private owner/ operator buying a new aircraft will have the advantage of free training from the manufacturers and a continuing programme of checks and recurrent training can be arranged with an established training organisation. Commercial crews also have free initial training on new aircraft but the further training can be influenced by cost constraints such as price of simulator and distance of provider, usually in the USA.

[Pace]

Yes private corporate jets flown by professional crews have a good safety record and way better than AOC ops so not sure why EASA want us to AOC standards :ugh:
To be fair the company jet is the companies pride and joy and usually flown by the same crew who know every squeak in the aircraft
Maybe different to AOC where the aircraft fly around the clock often by different crews and where the aircraft are regarded as work horses
But would be interesting to know why private jets have a substantially better safety record ?

Pace

[apruneuk]

They don't, at least not in Europe. I suggest you look up the business jet accidents involving JAR/EASA CAT business jets and N/VP private jets in Europe over the past 10 years. I think you might be surprised.
I think you are confusing European figures with FAA Part 135 vs Part 91 primarily in the States. EASA AOC business jets operate to the same standards and under the same oversight as the Airlines. Even so, accidents will happen and all EASA are trying to do is achieve a common standard of operation and oversight for those operators that are clearly based in Europe rather than just passing through.
You can rant all you like, Pace, but this is a done deal. Bad-mouthing Public Transport business jet operations and quoting misleading stats. won't help you, I'm afraid.
AP

[Pace]

So you are saying that Eurooean AOC ops are safer than the equivalent of our friends in the USA :ugh: not on the comparison studies I read
As for all the accidents happening in the USA and not in superior Europe show the statistics ?
It was a done deal in 2012 and still is not done

Pace

[apruneuk]

I have no desire to play Mines Bigger than Yours with you, Pace. The accident stats are available for you to peruse on Aviation Safety Network > (http://www.aviation-safety.net) if you don't mind the facts getting in the way of a good story.
Regardless, you really are missing the point. Oversight, common standards and accountability is what EASA are looking for from operators and crew who are clearly based and operating in Europe, and that is difficult to achieve under the present system.
AP

[apruneuk]

The reference should be Aviation Safety Network > (http://www.aviation-safety.net)

[Beaver100]

'Oversight' will be much much worse with having to operate with two sets of legislation, State of Registry and EASA, more accidents and incidents will happen as a result and it will give insurers the perfect reason not to pay out. The moment you step outside of your State of Registry legislation you open yourself up to all kinds of legal issues. EASA being a stateless non ICAO entity, and it is going way beyond it's remit with non EU registries.
The safety figures posted earlier are from legitimate studies and do show private corporate ops are more safe than commercial AOC holders. Pace listed a good reason that a businesses will look after it's aircraft, compared to chartered corporate jets that cut costs down to the last penny and their aircraft show extreme wear compared to a private aircraft. The crews of said chartered aircraft for much of the time are under extreme pressure to fly regardless of airworthiness or aircraft or fatigue.

[apruneuk]

If private ops. Really were safer than AOC in Europe (not America), don't you think the Authorities would be seriously concerned about it and taking appropriate action?
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP

[Beaver100]

The previous stats clearly relate to European AOC ops too, and clearly state that private non commercial ops have a better safety record than AOC ops.

Well, I and others can hardly wait for that 'standard level of AOC ops' That 'standard level of AOC ops' from what has been experienced by many is cut to the bone costs affecting safety, pay, fatigue and safe operation. That's something to really look forward to then isn't it ?


If private ops. Really were safer than AOC in Europe (not America), don't you think the Authorities would be seriously concerned about it and taking appropriate action?
On the contrary, they are attempting to bring all private jet operations in Europe, regardless of state of registry, to a standard level, approaching that of AOC ops. If this causes problems for third country operators who choose to base themselves in Europe long term without converting to the local register then they know what they can do about it. I understand the inconvenience this will cause for the smaller private operators but this is hardly breaking news.
AP

[Pace]

AC

There is negligible safety differences between FAA and Europe that is fact! Private ops in jets using professional crews are safer than AOC ops and no not because there is such a terrible safety record in USA that it is dragging all AOC ops down
Why ? It doesn't make sense to me either but if you have statistics which show otherwise please post them ))
There was always this arrogant view held in Europe that we produced better pilots with better training that is total rubbish and not shown in any statistics which EASA would have loved to have shown to strengthen their case but couldn't
For me EASA had a golden opportunity starting with a blank sheet to truly harmonise standards world wide and make it easier for pilots to work worldwide
That opportunity was lost in a sea of burocratic nonsense, self interest influence by pressure groups and politics
It makes no difference to those regulators with huge protected salaries and gold plated pensions whether hard working pilots are pushed into unemployment by their ridiculous demands and actions
They don't pay for it all

Shame

[apruneuk]

Beaver100 and Pace. If you take the time to have a look at the EASA Annual Safety Review for 2014 (google it), you will find the accident and serious injury numbers for all EASA Member State AOC operators for that year against the previous 10 year average.
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP

[Beaver100]

Yeah, your stats issued by EASA, funny that eh ? Especially when this whole nonsense is being driven by EASA

At least the previous stats posted were an independent review which found private ops (and in Europe) safer than AOC



Beaver100 and Pace. If you take the time to have a look at the EASA Annual Safety Review for 2014 (google it), you will find the accident and serious injury numbers for all EASA Member State AOC operators for that year against the previous 10 year average.
The report is conveniently split to cover Airline, Business Aviation (page 57)> 5700kg and GA. A 10 year annual average of < 1 fatal accident Worldwide for EASA member state AOC Business Aviation aircraft >5700kg seems fairly reasonable to me (and EASA). Got any figures for FAA part 135 and Part 91?
AP

[Global_Global]

I think the best data is here of AOC vs Private... It is based on FAA but it is loud and clear for me. Not for Pace but he cannot be convinced regardless of any data thrown at him :rolleyes:

Aircraft Accident Rates, 1990–2013 (per 100,000 flight hours) 1 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats1) Year General
Aviation 2 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats2)
Total/Fatal Air Taxi 3 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats3)
Total/Fatal Commuter
Air Carriers 4 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats4)
Total/Fatal Airlines 5 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats5)
Total/Fatal Corporate/
Executive 6 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats6)
Total/Fatal Business 7 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats7)
Total/Fatal 1990 7.77/1.56 4.76/1.29 0.641/0.171 0.198/0.171 0.210/0.090 3.71/0.96 1991 7.91/1.57 3.93/1.25 1.004/0.349 0.221/0.034 0.230/0.080 3.08/0.82 1992 8.51/1.81 2.67/0.84 0.942/0.300 0.146/0.032 0.210/0.080 2.17/0.68 1993 9.03/1.74 2.97/0.82 0.606/0.152 0.181/0.008 0.230/0.070 2.02/0.52 1994 9.08/1.81 3.45/1.05 0.359/0.108 0.168/0.030 0.180/0.070 1.81/0.51 1995 8.21/1.63 3.02/0.97 0.457/0.076 0.267/0.022 0.250/0.110 2.04/0.67 1996 7.65/1.45 2.80/0.90 0.399/0.036 0.269/0.036 0.140/0.060 1.68/0.34 1997 7.17/1.36 2.65/0.48 1.628/0.5098 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats8) 0.309/0.025 0.230/0.060 1.41/0.39 1998 7.43/1.41 2.03/0.45 2.262/0.000 0.297/0.006 0.091/0.000 1.14/0.30 1999 6.50/1.16 2.31/0.37 3.793/1.459 0.291/0.011 0.182/0.099 1.41/0.40 2000 6.57/1.21 2.04/0.56 3.247/0.271 0.306/0.016 0.125/0.060 1.28/0.37 2001 6.78/1.27 2.40/0.60 2.330/0.666 0.236/0.011 0.108/0.031 1.06/0.23 2002 6.69/1.33 2.06/0.62 2.559/0.000 0.237/0.000 0.116/0.029 1.08/0.36 2003 6.68/1.34 2.49/0.61 0.627/0.313 0.309/0.011 0.028/0.014 0.95/0.26 2004 6.49/1.26 2.04/0.71 1.324/0.000 0.159/0.011 0.093/0.013 0.91/0.23 2005 7.20/1.38 1.70/0.29 2.002/0.000 0.206/0.015 0.076/0.013 0.73/0.14 2006 6.35/1.28 1.39/0.27 0.995/0.332 0.171/0.010 0.141/0.011 0.80/0.29 2007 6.93/1.20 1.54/0.35 1.028/0.000 0.143/0.005 0.103/0.034 0.72/0.16 2008 6.86/1.21 1.81/0.62 2.385/0.000 0.147/0.010 0.075/0.000 9 (https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/#stats9) 1.27/0.16 2009 7.08/1.32 1.63/0.07 0.685/0.000 0.170/0.011 0.070/0.014 0.56/0.21 2010 6.63/1.23 1.00/0.19 1.947/0.000 0.163/0.006 0.067/0.000 0.79/0.25 2011 6.84/1.24 1.64/0.52 1.330/0.000 0.173/0.000 0.061/0.000 0.73/0.22 2012 6.76/1.25 1.24/0.28 1.250/0.000 0.151/0.000 0.141/0.025 0.48/0.13 2013 5.34/1.05 1.50/0.33 2.265/0.971 0.107/0.011 0.38/0.025 0.66/0.17

[Global_Global]

Ohh bugger.. I am as good at posting as Pace is at being rational: https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/

[Beaver100]

And there we have it, both of your stat postings are worthless as they offer no direct comparison between private Corporate and AOC Corporate. Also, all figures are US based.



Ohh bugger.. I am as good at posting as Pace is at being rational: https://www.nbaa.org/ops/safety/stats/

[apruneuk]

Beaver100. I have had a look at Robert Breiling Associates, the apparent authors of your quoted report. They appear to be an American private company who sell reports on the aviation industry. From their home page they state that there have been 176 business jet and turboprop accidents in 2014. EASA state that one of these involved one of their aircraft; I am afraid you will have to pay Robert Breiling $200 to find out which registers the others were on......
AP

[HyFlyer]

I think you'll find that a rigorous statistical mathematical analysis of the data, from a scientific reality based viewpoint and not a political, bureaucratic of nationalistic agenda point of view will reveal.....

...the statistics you are presenting are pretty meaningless......
...and events are well below any threshold of relevance.

From so few events, then inferring not only correlation but also dependence is pushing the boat way out......and from dependence to causality is well......fun to talk about but really......pull the other one.



The issue is simply put.

Has the existence of EASA made understanding and working within reasonable guidelines easier for the users?

NO would be the answer to that question....in fact, HELL NO!!! is the full answer.

[apruneuk]

You must be hoot at parties:eek:

[Pace]

1.6 The higher overall fatal accident rate for air taxi operations may justify further analysis. European operators are subject to direct regulatory oversight under EU-OPS, the same as for regular public transport, whereas in the USA air taxi operations are overseen by the less demanding Part 135 regulations. It is believed that EU-OPS regulated air taxi operations may demonstrate a far better safety record than the overall figure would suggest. This is a recommended area for further study.

this from The CAA own study document and so obviously defensive and I stress the words " recommended area for further study"

I have seen very poor AOC ops I am sure we can all think of some and some very well run Private ops.

interesting the CAA document refers to over regulation and stress caused by meeting those regulations as well as confusion in the EASA mess up.
I do not know what EASA are trying to achieve? I am not against oversight and working within a framework as that is sensible.

I can even understand having to pass one exam Air law for pilots flying on ATPs on third country licenses where the operator is based in Europe but the expensive and stupid mess EASA are trying to put in place is very much a sledgehammer trying to crack an egg while the oversight they supposedly want could so easily be achieved without loading pilots with huge costs or the threat of loosing their livelihoods. if they so want dual licences so as to have some control over the pilots as well as the aircraft then a simple you must hold an EASA licence to fly for an operator based in Europe would give them that control to remove that licence but frankly a Basic PPL would legally achieve that or a restricted ATP exchange requiring one air law exam limited to private aircraft and non commercial operations but maybe that was too simple for them? not enough work to justify their gold plated jobs?

I believe EASA had a dictate to make it practically impossible for N reg to operate based in Europe i.e. a political rather than safety based mandate otherwise they could have accommodated these pilots and aircraft in a far more practical way this way its obviously nothing to do with safety

The best way if they had really been safety driven would have been to offer a special EASA restricted ATP to 3rd country ATP holders limited to non commercial use On private jets ? Maybe with an air law pass as a prerequisite but that was too simple ??

Pace

[His dudeness]

Defacto the "new" rules made for just more workload with the same or sometimes even less workforce to cover said administrative junk,

I was DO/MM and had to make the transition from German Air Law to JAROPS, never ever in my life worked so much like after that switch. And 99,5% is just for the birds and will never have any impact on safety.

I had hoped to fly the last 18 years of my career without their BS, but one never can evade the bureaucrats in Europe for a long time.

[Pace]

HD

I for one hope we vote ourselves out of Europe before 2017 and that we revert to a common market not all the centralised and bureaucratic and expensive nonsense that no one in the UK ever voted for

Pace

[His dudeness]

Can I seek asylum then ?

OTOH, I always though of the British bureaucracy of being in the top league of being inflated. The APD is a good example IMO.

[Pace]

To all those who defend the actions of EASA on what they are doing I would like to ask what they see in the EASA regulations which has made aviation easier, more cost effective, more streamlined, less costly to the end user and more safe?

What has EASA done to expand aviation in Europe to make aviation in Europe more attractive to companies who are thinking of using aircraft or even to the AOC operators who have to sell to those companies and individuals?

Surely N reg in Europe has been there for longer than the EU or even the common market. Many have tried and failed to legally stop N reg was that not the remit given to the EASA lawyers? to find a way?

The best way would have been the way of the market place to offer something more attractive so no one would want to operate N reg?

I don't know of any aircraft based in the USA where the owners are on a European reg because its more attractive that way.

i say again and again that EASA had a clean sheet to really build a set of regulations which pulled the world together! Maybe taking the tried and tested FAA system improving on it adjusting it to suit European specific requirements and above all uniting all the regulatory systems into a common framework. Instead we have this expensive complicated and ridiculous mess to deal with. Even the poor old CAA are at a loss of what to do

Pace

[Beaver100]

The irony is that some of these defending EASA on here were posting not so long ago that they wanted an N reg job in Europe when they only had FAA certs. It was good enough and safe enough for you then. But back to the 'oversight' bit any operational and flight crew licence changes would have to be driven by the non EU State of Registry and not EASA for obvious reasons. Rightly so I cannot see the FAA agreeing to this. Funny though that very few pilots working for AOC ops seem happy with their lot, cut to the bone costs in their operation, poor pay, poor training and lack of morale to name but a few of the issues, but there are way more serious problems than those aren't they ?
Yeah, great idea eh ? bring in a whole load of duff legislation to make private ops more like AOC, not exactly something to look forward to. All of this coupled with the low cost Airline churn out 200 hour A320 co pilots debacle makes flying in Europe less attractive and less safe every year.


To all those who defend the actions of EASA on what they are doing I would like to ask what they see in the EASA regulations which has made aviation easier, more cost effective, more streamlined, less costly to the end user and more safe?

What has EASA done to expand aviation in Europe to make aviation in Europe more attractive to companies who are thinking of using aircraft or even to the AOC operators who have to sell to those companies and individuals?

Surely N reg in Europe has been there for longer than the EU or even the common market. Many have tried and failed to legally stop N reg was that not the remit given to the EASA lawyers? to find a way?

The best way would have been the way of the market place to offer something more attractive so no one would want to operate N reg?

I don't know of any aircraft based in the USA where the owners are on a European reg because its more attractive that way.

i say again and again that EASA had a clean sheet to really build a set of regulations which pulled the world together! Maybe taking the tried and tested FAA system improving on it adjusting it to suit European specific requirements and above all uniting all the regulatory systems into a common framework. Instead we have this expensive complicated and ridiculous mess to deal with. Even the poor old CAA are at a loss of what to do

Pace

[Pace]

Beaver

Where I do not fully agree is that I do feel EASA should have some control over so many based N reg in Europe and some oversight of our operations is a good thing.

What I don't agree with is EASA regulating us to the extent that there is no point in having an N reg in Europe as we are expected to be like an AOC operation and to hold the same licences. That is dictatorship tactics and not free market competition.

We are being regulated out of existence rather than EASA making their system so attractive that who would want an N reg.
They have done this through false promises and frankly dishonest deceit.

I also agree with you that many of the previous JAA licence holder who were the most antagonistic towards FAA pilots were the very ones who got licence swops freely through places like Ireland when those loopholes were open.

Pace

[Beaver100]

I don't think the oversight will be of any use but if it means that you can still fly N reg on FAA certs in Europe by way of an ops and sms manual, then I wish you luck in obtaining the right to continue to work.
I never knew that about the Irish straight swap FAA to JAA licence. Well, it would seem then that EASA should do the same for current non EU licenced pilots in Europe

[PPRuNe Towers]

That loophole only lasted 12 months per pilot didn't it Pace? One year to get JAA'd - the exams and licensing.

I personally don't know of business pilots making use of it but it might well have been possible. Overwhemlingly utilised by an EI carrier during the years they flooded this site with adverts.

Rob

[Pace]

Whats not clear or at a tangent ?

Pace

[Chronus]

Any Captain Mainwarings out there "don`t panick.

I understand whilst implementing rules have all been published, but have the acceptable means of compliance (AMC) been agreed. Waste of time to implement the rules without the AMC.

[Pace]

Only the right to work in Europe, Pace.

Are you not placing EASA AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?

Journey Man

Sorry missed this! How can we be putting AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?

We fly privately owned and operated jets which are not commercial operations
To do commercial operations in non commercial private jets is illegal?

That may have happened a few years ago but is getting less and less the case.
On the point of commercial disadvantage I am sure EASA will be streamlining the regulations, cutting away all the needless and expensive bureaucracy and reducing AOC costs dramatically thus expanding the attractiveness of business jet use to non owners?

Pigs might fly? as that is what they should be doing ? but are doing the opposite

Pace

[Journey Man]

That may have happened a few years ago but is getting less and less the case.

According to data compiled by WingX, in Europe illegal flights accounted for 17,640 flights in 2012, an estimated loss of €1,218,000,000 to commercial operators; and 17,500 in 2014 with an estimated loss of €1,301,000,000 to commercial operators.

In both years that represented 14% of all flights.

I'd suggest that most NS-CAT operations would like to see tighter regulation of NCC operations as that is a huge impact on the industry. Whilst I appreciate that your concern is for your personal situation, others are significantly affected.

[CL300]

just as a matter of interest.

If a company like WingX has sufficient proofs that 17000+ flights were illegal, that means truly illegal. ( selling a ticket for a trip whilst not having AOC, etc..)
Then it should be easy for the authorities to get this straight, after all 1 billion euro should pay some lawyers for a while ( or not :suspect:)
OR
these flights are not illegal, but are perceived as such.

I understand the concerns of AOC holders about loss of revenue, and i believe that they do not like these "clubs" or else, but the market dictates, and EASA and their lobbyist ( big players that is , NJE and the like) WILL NEVER FIGHT FOR SMALL OPERATIONS, NEVER !!! All operators should fight against ANY MORE layer of regulation in Europe, not looking ONLY at their balance sheet ( or **** for that matter), but looking a bit forward to see their gloomy future IF more regulation are in place.

Nevertheless , I would love to have the "big data" about these flights, after all it is public interest to know this ? no ?

[Pace]

Journey Man

Statistics can be used, manipulated and exaggerated to reinforce the argument desired!
Illegal charter itself is not black and white but different shades of grey and hence I would regard that description with caution especially when statistics are used to paint a picture!
There is obvious illegal charter where the owner of a jet advertises its use in the media, where Joe Bloggs gets a price to take him and his friends away for the day
The other end of the scale is a company with its own flight department, aircraft pilots etc who lease in a replacement aircraft for a couple of months while their aircraft has gone tech! Where all the paperwork is properly covered and the owner has no involvement for the period.

In between are shades of grey! I would be vey surprised if those statistics are accurate to what is truly illegal charter as I think more so today we are in a liability society, where insurance dictates and where the cost of a mistake can be huge
Most owners are very wealthy individuals or companies who would not Risk the implications of such cowboy antics of illegal charter in the true sense

Some AOC operations see private operations as a threat full stop and would like private jets to be operated through an AOC or not in existence at all so those companies who owned them would be buying their services instead? To them private jets are removing income that could potentially be theirs full stop illegal charter or otherwise or that is how they stupidly and blindly perceive things.

But yes i will agree that there will have been powerful lobby groups who will have banded those false statistics around and strongly influenced the course of part M and 3rd country licensing to level that playing field to such an extent that the use of private jets on a foreign registry becomes pointless and to drive them out that way.
Driving them out that way will do nothing to improve safety or the bank balances of AOC ops sadly.
EASA had a clean sheet to start with and had a Golden opportunity to have really furthered aviation in Europe for all. That opportunity has been thrown away to be replaced by a complicated and expensive mess for all

Pace

[Bidule]

To Pace

That is dictatorship tactics and not free market competition. Is it possible to base and operate a non N-registered aircraft in the USA? If so, under which regulation(s)?

[noneya]

There are many non-N reg aircraft BASED in the USA.... In WPB alone we have M, VP, VQ, P4. and probably others that I can see from our hangar.

[imriozer]

There are many non-N reg aircraft BASED in the USA.... In WPB alone we have M, VP, VQ, P4. and probably others that I can see from our hangar.

Can they fly without any restrictions? Don't they need a waiver for each flight within the U.S.?

[apruneuk]

A read of the recently-released report on the G1V accident N823GA at Le Castellet in 2012 (thread active on this forum) might give some weight to the argument for more EASA oversight of third country operators in Europe. Part 91 one day, commercial part 135 the next in Europe without written permission, non-adherence to SOPs, CRM issues and ineffective oversight by the FAA. A sad story and an accident that could have been avoided.
AP

[Pace]

I really don't think one accident is reflective of anything and you will also find equal accidents under AOC ops maybe they need oversight too!
There have also been some very shoddy AOC ops I worked with a company next to one which I won't name around the clock ) so don't presume all in the AOC world is golden

Pace

[Beaver100]

A poor posting aprune , they weren't even based in Europe. By your reckoning then you want to ban all N reg including Airlines from ever entering Europe ?
Funny that not so long ago you were happy to post that you wanted to work on N reg corporate aircraft with just your FAA licence. It was good enough for you then

[mattman]

Yes! Yes! all these squeaky clean AOC establishments with enough acronyms behind them to scare the most persistent inspector off the trail.

I remember a Premier 1 into Samadan, using the private "field" to attempt to get in so as to allow him to do the charter thing the next day. Did not end so well.

There are mistakes and fatalities on both sides of the field and if we are going to squabble amongst each other who has the longest ................stick, this well may turn into a RW thread.

This has nothing to do with safety, if you believe this then leave the thread turn off your iPad and go enjoy a cocktail by the beach and dream of riches.

This is just the power of economics and lobbyism at play. For every Mom and Pop private owner and operation is one less the BIG boys have in there pocket. Seeing how competition is fierce in this sector with your top dogs controlling the majority of management, the morsels remaining, which us "die hard's" are, private operations are now the ultimate target. Seeing cost is not going to swing the vote of the director, as this in a accounting perspective proves the atrocious costing's of the management companies, the next step is the, "lets legislate them out of existence", with banners springing up all over PPrune of 130000 lobbyist for hire in Brussels, we stood no chance.
There are some private operations out there, and I been privy to some, that would put the top names (AOC and Management) to utter shame, this is not done to flaunt success and safety, but the sole fact that they fly and support there principle to the highest standard they know how.

What is happening now is the degrading of safety, now operators and management companies , are going to stretch the legal jargon of EASA Ops to the max. Soon you guys are going to be FDP'ing yourself into exhaustion, and because some very clever and cunning scheduling departments are going to know exactly how to milk the system.

My (angry) two cents worth, I am a small fish in this large pond and soon I will be eaten but I have the ability to voice my opinion, for now.

[Pace]

Matt man

It can be stopped but only when someone with enough financial clout seriously offers a challenge in the EU courts
It has already been shown that the threat of such a challenge was enough to get the commission to rap EASA knuckles there are many points of law which would create problems
But without a serious threat of such a challenge it will slip
Through the back door unchallenged like you the whole farce angers me by the pure deception and dishonest tactics EASA have used but as I said as long as their over bloated salaries and benefits roll in what do they care about destroying the income income of others or what the costs are to comply it doesn't effect their pockets

Pace

[mattman]

Pace

I agree with you, the farcical process which is the EU is in no means supporting the common man, yet is designed to support the elite. I have yet to find the employer that will support the aviation department to this extent.

This is not from a cost point of view, because they all have the money, but more from the political implications. Many fingers and many pies.

I have realized this is making me a bitter and angry person, and have stated to redefine my life, and start afresh in other ventures. I will reap the last of my aviation career as long as it lasts then move on.

[Beaver100]

I can understand your decision but it's at least worth fighting for your career before you decide to go. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

[Pace]

i would love to sit down with EASA and ask them what they are trying to achieve? The official line would be improved safety and oversight of private jet operations

But why the dual licences which is the issue with working pilots on mainly N reg based in Europe.

surely those pilots could have been issued with dual licenses simply, quickly and with a cost going into £100s not £1000s

All that would have been required is an FAA ATP being exchanged for an EASA restricted ATP ? restricted to non commercial use on N reg only and on private jets.
EASA regs would then have had equal control of those licenses at no heavy cost to existing working pilots so why all this expensive rubbish?
What has happened to the BI Lateral agreement that EASA were working around the clock to achieve ? Another false smoke screen?

I could possibly understand much younger pilots with 20 plus years still ahead to draw back these costs but what happens to older pilots who only have a few earning years left and no chance of getting back these costs? How are they to be accommodated ?

the problem we have is that we are a very fragmented group with no common voice

Pace