Part NCC Stuff [Archive]

Mike Echo

18th Mar 2016, 14:42

Part NCC
Having now attended a workshop it did appear that there are quite a few details that don't seem to have been highlighted which could affect Operators. I won't even go into the amount of paperwork, auditing, and compliance required.

For third country registered aircraft when you sign the declaration you are agreeing to comply with PART NCC regulations anywhere in the world. So you could end up flying a US registered aircraft in the US but having to comply with both FAR's and EASA. "Hopefully" if any conflicts and you take the most restrictive you "should" be OK.

On the 26th August you would have to apply the FTL and Factored Runway of the State of Operation as at the moment EASA have not created any rules. When they do you would have to comply. At the moment, and I'm not a pilot, this would not seem to cause an issue for private operations.

It seems possible that under Part NCC, to use the US aircraft example, you could not use a freelance US pilot, in the US, on a US aircraft unless they had EU licences! Maybe I'm wrong.

I do wonder what other details are hidden in the legislation as I'm not a lawyer.

However, no choice it has to be done
Mike Echo

Booglebox

20th Mar 2016, 04:26

His dudeness

20th Mar 2016, 08:52

It seems to me that many companies offering workshops / legal seminars etc. are trying to use FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) to convince private aircraft to buy their (management, in this case) services

Absolutely.

In this context: EASA will soon offer a template OM-A for non complex NCC operators. For free. If you attend the AERO in EDNY and the seminar by AOPA, then this might be of interest:

https://aopa.de/aktuell/ops-ncc-do-it-yourself-erac-und-iaopa-praesentieren-ops-ncc-dokumentation-auf-der-aero.html

Several German soon-to-be-NCCs have teamed up with AOPA and IDRF (Interessengemeinschaft der regionalen Flugplätze - the german association of regional airports), EASA, the swedish CAA and the German LBA and have crafted a template OM-A, which is right now circulating within EASA for final comments. This OMA will be EASA compliant and thus a national CAA will hardly be able to reject it. It is high time that we (NCCs) participate way more in these matters, as the lobbyists do "plough their fields". EBAA are of now help, as they are - IMHO - hopelessly on the side of management companies and don´t want small ops to survive.

Mike Echo

21st Mar 2016, 14:38

Totally Agree with the F.U.D. and have already had offers of "help" for quite eye watering sums of money. It's not that that bothers me too much but what I don't want is for our aircraft to be grounded and having to explain it to our owner without him being briefed.
I'm not convinced, like Booglebox, that nothing will happen as it is the best opportunity for years for EASA to jump on and regulate the Third Country Operators but I'm getting old and cynical.
The Isle of Man and now AOPA are producing templates for their operators but none of the other Authorities that I know are.

EBAA do seem to act more like an association for Management Companies but I'm at a loss how NCC's could work together

Interesting times over the next 6 months.

His dudeness

21st Mar 2016, 15:39

but I'm at a loss how NCC's could work together

We took some money in our hands, employed a guy to write the manual and are involve ourselfs - that means to attend meetings and cross read the manual as it evolves and give our input towards EASA and the author. Our experience is that the national CAAs and EASA are quite thankful to get some feedback and involvement. They often simply don´t know how and what we do. Lufthansa is always there, BigAirlines and the likes - we are not. Our fault.

We NCCs have allowed wicked people like the EBAA to speak for us way too long and part of the problems in terms of overregulation is clearly our fault as we have not involved ourselfes. NetJets and others surely are represented (thru EBAA, have a look at their member list). Ask yourself why there is the plan to make 48 hrs of sim training mandatory within 3 years.
Hint: the guy who sits in several committees for GAMA is also working for Flight Safety....

Lets face it: thats how things are done in our new brave world.

I can say, the German AOPA guy, Michael Erb and the guy from IDRF, Thomas Mayer, are a massive help and both are "pushers" towards less regulation and regs that make sense. NOW is a critical time - involve yourself.

And let me add one thing: most of "us" have no idea what comes at them and seem to think we need "approval" - we don´t. You do give a statement to the CAA, thats it. Of course you need to be able to back that statement up with a structure.

Global_Global

21st Mar 2016, 20:33

It is high time that we (NCCs) participate way more in these matters, as the lobbyists do "plough their fields".The whole NCC process, albeit messy, was started to create a level playing field and get rid of the cowboys who think they know best (" We have done it like that for years! so why do we need to change")... So if the industry is cleaning things up themselves than it will become even easier. And it is about time as I have seen too often attitude win over reason in our side of the industry and even worse seen too many owners push the pointy end to do stuff they shouldn't be doing :)

We will slowly see the flags of conveniences being pushed out and it is only waiting for the rules on economical ownership on off shore entities to be pushed through and we almost become a normal industry ;)

Even with all these goodies of IDRF to be handed out like manuals etc: DO NOT sign the letter of compliance before getting proper legal advice! The only one who will be happy when YOU sign it is your boss... And as long as the aircraft is owned through a leasing structure or an off shore entity YOU will be screwed if anything happens not your boss. So either get a pay raise or the best insurance in town but do not sign the letter unless you have talked to a lawyer (hint: if your boss pays the lawyer it might not be the right one for real independent advice. Another hint: if your lawyer does something else and aviation on the side he is not the guy to talk to!)

mattman

22nd Mar 2016, 04:45

All regulation and laws are developed with the best intentions. NCC is a adoption of ICAO ANNEX 6 and all EASA has done is adopt it. The FAA has flat out ignored it and smaller countries will implement it.
What really upsets me is the capilization of all safety related regulation in industry today.
For example the Health and Safety industry is a billion plus money pit that does nothing more than apply common sense. i.e. Signage to hold a hand rails using stairs.

This is what exactly happened here, a good intention has spurned a huge industry, and companies and individuals are now looking to capitalize on the regulation. An example, is the now retired CAA experts that can go and consult.

I personally agree with NCC and what it can offer but authorities should be mandating a formula that we can all use to help us implement and pass on to the owners, because that is what they want. Cowboy outfits are usually instances of bosses ruling the operation.

Management companies have basically seen this as a blank check. This does not mean that there operations are safer and better than most of the one man bands. What they offer is a broad scope compliance, but these things are as only as good as the people following the regulation. All paper can be fudged what happens in real life is completely different. If they wanted to regulate we would have an inspector on every flight in the jump seat, or on the floor.
What I have learned, especially from Europe, is that they take regulation and dump it in the industry and wait for the waves to stop. They have no idea of the ramifications and damage they do.
What will NCC do? Basically it will be another paper, dust gathering exercise that will cost money to operations and shrink the industry further.
The die hards, as myself will do all we can to comply and do it cost effectively but there will come a time where it will dawn in the owners that owning and flying privately is not cost effective and operationally effective and give it all up as a bad idea.

Being part of an organization like EBAA is nothing more than a marketing tool for mangament and AOC operators and the standard line from these people, who you pay a huge membership fee to, is to use a management company.
We don't have a combined voice is because we are a motley crew of, in house owner operators that want to be left alone and do our thing. We don't want to be part of a bigger voice, as we like the small and quiet existence we lead, inconspicuous!

As I am part of a handling company as well, I have the advantage of seeing the different types of operations come though, and let me tell you, the private guys are always more professional and more courteous and there equipment and operation, better than the AOC and mangaged (multi crew) operations.
They seem to take more pride and care of there passengers and equipment than guys that are just there as pilots in a seat.
That's my observation and opinion so don't get all heated if you don't agree.
We can moan about what's happening and we an even push back but it will just make your life miserable.

fairflyer

22nd Mar 2016, 07:17

When you think how so many non-EU registered aircraft drift around Europe and in and out of Europe with ostensibly no definitive 'home base' country, how on earth does a national civil aviation authority within the EASA zone track and monitor who is and who isn't based in their territory of responsibility? 90% of the time, they won't have a clue how to even contact the operator, let alone the owner of such jets with most being on registers of convenience, leased by one party to another, managed by someone else, titled to a different entity etc. etc.

Would love to see the UK CAA try and call up the bloke in charge of that Aruban/Isle of Man/Guernsey/Cayman etc. etc. jet, owned ultimately by a Russian, operated say by some Swiss outfit and spending much of it's life around London, to see if they've declared their Part-NCC compliance - good luck mate! And if they do wander over on the ramp one day at Luton to ask the crew, 'where are you based?' they just say 'USA', 'Dubai', wherever.....certainly not in Europe.

His dudeness

22nd Mar 2016, 08:23

We don't have a combined voice is because we are a motley crew of, in house owner operators that want to be left alone and do our thing. We don't want to be part of a bigger voice, as we like the small and quiet existence we lead, inconspicuous!

Well said, but in todays environment we can´t sustain this attitude.

As I am part of a handling company as well, I have the advantage of seeing the different types of operations come though, and let me tell you, the private guys are always more professional and more courteous and there equipment and operation, better than the AOC and mangaged (multi crew) operations.
They seem to take more pride and care of there passengers and equipment than guys that are just there as pilots in a seat.

Having done both, I agree. AOC operators have a tendency to be real cheap fukcs and this reflects on every aspect in the operation. If one tries to go the extra step as a pilot, he´ll often end up on the toes of somebody else. been there, done that...

Marlon Brando

1st Apr 2016, 14:49

Hi there

Got a job offer on a N plane, "based" in Europe (the hangar is in Europe...) flying worldwide, American AOC, part 91.

Timing is pretty bad with this Part NCC coming in force in a August

Will this plane be able to continue its operations or not ?
With FAA pilots ?
I can't found the answer, some say yes, others no...

dc9-32

1st Apr 2016, 15:56

Part 91 AOC. Are you sure ?

Marlon Brando

1st Apr 2016, 19:16

That's what i've been told.

Underrated and Moderated

1st Apr 2016, 22:13

To paraphrase a recent email i received from a learned friend......CAA ..... Third Country Licensing.......EASA.......Part NCC........Left Arm......Right Arm.......Elbow........Arses.......Nuff said.

For the sake of a laugh (not very funny), call the CAA FCL lot and ask them about the Bilateral Safety Agreement and the delay re having to possess a validation if you are a third country licence holder......"Err...the bilateral what.....uh? I, erm.....we at the CAA......errr.....sorry, third country eh? Validation for erm....huh??"

HOPELESS ...... bloody hopeless!! Oh well, its not like I have a separate OPC check ride lined up for the 9th April, in order to get a validation or anything.....oh!! THANKS oh ye profit making CAA!!!! :D:D:ugh::ugh::suspect:

Bunch of :mad:

Marlon Brando

1st Apr 2016, 23:58

this is confusing, indeed...
I come from easa land.

So if you fly under part 91, you can NOT have an AOC.

winkwink

2nd Apr 2016, 05:39

Part 91 is private operations. It covers private aircraft of all types, from Pipers up to A380s if they are operated privately, that is if the operator does not "hold out" for hire. If I were to advertise flights online or in any medium in an aircraft, as an AOC does, I should need to be a part 135 operation.
A part 91 operation and an AOC operation are two completely different things.

Marlon Brando

2nd Apr 2016, 10:52

Ok, and this part 91 operations are under the radar of the Easa.

This is the problem...

Will a N plane based in europe be able to operate withh FAA pilots after August ?

g450cpt

2nd Apr 2016, 12:26

Ok, and this part 91 operations are under the radar of the Easa.

This is the problem...

Will a N plane based in europe be able to operate withh FAA pilots after August ?

No a part 91 operator is not "under the radar" of EASA. They have to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to FAR part 91 (private flights not for hire) as well as any applicable regulations in whatever foreign country they may be flying in at the moment.
As for your other question. If the operator of the aircraft is not based in EASA land then they can operate the aircraft as they would anywhere else in the world. It does not matter where the owner lives or where the aircraft is stationed at that present time, as long as the operator's base of operations is outside of Europe then they can use FAA pilots. If the operator is a management company based in Europe then it becomes a problem.

g450cpt

Someflyer

29th Apr 2016, 18:51

While reading this post and the tread concerning the N reg pilots flying around Europe, It's getting me confused.

Considering the deadline for the EASA licenses has been pushed (still waiting for the official announcement to arrive before May 7th), Can someone explain to me, in layman terms, how does part NCC regulations now effect the pilots who are flying the part NCC compliant aircraft ??

Basically, after this delay, can I still fly an N reg plane, based in Europe, after 8 of August, under part NCC, still using my FAA ticket ?? and if not then why ?

Thanks in advance to everyone who answer...

Marlon Brando

30th Apr 2016, 22:01

I tried to understand that myself.
I'm done trying to now.

Will see

this is my username

4th May 2016, 05:35

CAA have issued an updated opt-out on licencing here:

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1171.pdf

Paragraph 5 is the relevant one - only extends to August 2016 if "the pilot receives any remuneration or other valuable consideration for their services" - I guess that ties in the with the implementation of Part-NCC??

Beaver100

4th May 2016, 07:01

I don't see the relevance of the part NCC August date for this regulation if you are paid. Part NCC has nothing to do with holding an EASA licence or validation of a third country licence so it's laughable to see it included with the document.

moonym20

4th May 2016, 11:10

I suspect they will be sneaking licence requirements through with Part-NCC?? Why else would they only delay until August?

If you read IN-2016/041 you will see it is only binding to UK airspace... my question now is, we have say France who have not delayed and you want to fly from the UK to Spain... is your flight through France now illegal because you do not hold a validation/Part-FCL?? same applies to a tech stop in France.

The CAA are telling me if you have a SAFA check (lets say now after August 25th) and do not have a validation or Part-FCL.... your plane will be detained until the crew have a relevant validation/licence.... :D

Thoughts.........

Beaver100

4th May 2016, 12:27

Interesting. Who told you that at the CAA ?

Above The Clouds

4th May 2016, 18:47

I suspect they will be sneaking licence requirements through with Part-NCC?? Why else would they only delay until August?

Maybe they are waiting for the results of the Brexit referendum in June, I am guessing but if the UK leave the EU all the licensing will possibly change again.

Someflyer

4th May 2016, 19:25

That's wishful thinking.
Even If the Brexit will happen (And I do hope it will), the UK CAA will continue to be part of EASA or at least follow EASA guidelines because that will be the easiest thing to do for them.

It seems that I can't get a straight answer from anyone nowhere. I'm still trying to understand which part of part-NCC which suppose to be dealing only with operating a non commercial complex aircraft suddenly became a limitation to 3rd country pilots ?

Or in the words of someone I just spoke to in the FAA ".. one of those sleek bastards manged to sneak this in under our noses..."

Beaver100

4th May 2016, 20:37

Someflyer, you have my sympathies. You won't find anything that states that part NCC includes 3rd country licence restrictions, and that's because there isn't anything. Part NCC has nothing to do with licences although certain individuals have jumped on the bandwagon to include it which they most definitely should not.
It's good you have called the FAA, good to get them involved in this rubbish, maybe you could knock it higher up there in their legal department ?

There are currently two completely different statements from Brussels and the UK CAA. According to a working group of third country licenced pilots the team in Brussels responsible for the derogation meant for it to be EU wide and not airspace or country restrictive. Also they have stated that all pilots paid or unpaid in private operations are allowed to fly unrestricted until at least 8th April 2017.
This is in writing and many of the third country licenced pilots in this situation have had visibility of the emails from the MEP's responsible for the regulation assuring them legally that they are fine to fly. Should you wish a copy of this them pm your email address as this information can hardly be argued with in any court of law. Print it out, and take it with you on your flights. The MEP has given permission for this information to be shared and for them to be contacted if necessary for verbal confirmation.

Someflyer

5th May 2016, 07:20

Beaver,

Thank you for this info. I will PM you shortly to get copies of the MEP's mails. I've just got a termination of contract letter citing part NCC as the main cause and I'm absolutely livid.

If i'm getting sacked, the least the boss can do is to tell it straight and not hide behind some misinterpreted regulations.

There is too much confusion about who and what it's becoming (Sorry, it is already) an absurd........

Mike Echo

5th May 2016, 09:00

I was really going to keep out of this but a couple of things came to mind;
The FAA will have no interest whatsoever in what happens in EASA land.
FAR 91.Subpart H, addresses the U.S. commitment to the Treaty. Specifically 91.703(a)(2) states: “When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and manoeuvre of aircraft there in force;”
Basically U.S. operators are required by FAR to operate in compliance with the requirements where operations take place.
To the FAA the aircraft and crew are fully certified and qualified - which ends their oversight. The fact that EASA are adding their own requirements potentially grounding third country if they feel like it would have to be taken to an even higher level than the FAA and get Lawyers involved. Mainly US pressure curtailed a lot of the Emissions Trading scheme nonsense but the airlines and AOC Operators are not affected by Part NCC.

I really wouldn't hold my breath awaiting a FAA legal interpretation.

I'm not sure of the SAFA check as there is nothing (that I know about) where they tick off the Operators base of operations, which is crucial for deciding if Part NCC applies, for non commercial operations (There is in the AOC section). There will be many thousands of Third country aircraft passing through the EU so how they are going to work out who is based in the EU or not could be quite difficult. Grounding a perfectly serviceable aircraft and certified crew on safety grounds is ridiculous but I suppose could and will be done.

Part NCC does not containing anything specific about licences. However, being old and very cynical, when the Part NCC declaration form is signed
Part of the statement in this states “All flights will be carried out in accordance with the procedures and instructions specified in the operations manual”. Part of the Ops manual is sure to contain some line as to complying with a countries regulations.
There are much cleverer people than me who may know better.

Like a lot of EASA regulation the whole issue is complex and badly written. The problems tend to occur with what is not written.

What a mess, so I'll continue planning my retirement :)

M.E.

moonym20

5th May 2016, 11:58

Beaver,

Send me a PM and I will happily share what I have been told about detaining aircraft.

There's no surprise someone, somewhere is trying hard to put an end to the whole Third Country licencing issue.

It cyclical and has been for years. Who remembers when the DFT made a specific attempt to have N-Reg and N-Reg pilots banned outright in the UK? How quickly was that put to bed when the right folks started to kick up a stink... then a different tactic was tried, one of the previous years was only delayed in part because a group of professional aircrew took on a solicitor to poke holes and look for probability of a successful outcome if they went to court (and there was)... this time it seems that the whole Third Country licencing issue is turning into such a bloody mess they will make another attempt via Part-NCC perhaps to block it??

Its priceless when your own NAA claim to know absolutely nothing of any BSA, when you furnish proof to the contrary they stick their heads in the sand and say its nothing to do with them,,, they're not 'privy' to such discussions.

To anyone hoping we get the 'good' old CAA back after Brexit, it will never happen ... EASA is here to stay (sadly)...

I keep saying it and will continue to do so... Politics has NO place in aviation :ugh:

this is my username

5th May 2016, 16:26

and another one ... :

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2016041.pdf

mattman

5th May 2016, 17:50

Ok so please all explain, am I F00ked now? Or am I F00ked later?

This is so stupid now

Beaver100

5th May 2016, 19:34

The 25th August part NCC date on the information notice link above has no relevance to flight crew licenses, the UK CAA know this. Ignore it and continue flying until at least April 2017 when this mess will likely be delayed again. Euro parliament have confirmed that 25 August 2016 does not apply to remunerated pilots of private flight ops.

Hawker 800

6th May 2016, 06:36

Care to paste a link to confirm that, Beaver?

Beaver100

6th May 2016, 07:13

An old colleague has it directly via email from the lead MEP from the EU TRAN committee who approved the unrestricted delay (both unrestricted in EU airspace and unrestricted remunerated or non remunerated pilots) to 8 Apr 17. In their own words they represent all EU countries and all committees

mattman

6th May 2016, 08:54

Oh well! I don't understand anymore.

I am going to put my pink furry handcuffs in my flight bag and wait patiently at the door of every landing for the sky cops to come get me.

If I am going down, I am going down in style !!!

BizJetJock

6th May 2016, 11:08

Beaver, the problem is that it doesn't make any difference if the MEPs say "we didn't mean that". It's what is actually written that will be enforced. This is equally common in UK law, not confined to EU/EASA!
This is nothing to do with NCC per se, just the CAA have decided to use the same date.
The important thing is that this is an operator requirement, so this notice from the CAA affects UK operators. If, as someone has posted, France has decided not to take up the derogation at all then all French operators should already be complying. Of course, in France nobody pays any attention to such regs so everyone there is happy.

Beaver100

6th May 2016, 11:47

No, that's not correct and if you read the latest notice it states more than UK operators. It's immaterial to the many who have dealt directly with the Euro MEP's and Parliament leading the policy and derogation. They have written what I posted from my former colleague previously and signed it, and further to this it seems that the UK CAA are misinterpreting what has been written by the Euro MEP's. In no way does part NCC dictate any requirement for a UK validation, it isn't required. The unrestricted airspace and licence derogation has been confirmed by the European Authorities who apparently have full legal jurisdiction over this matter.

Mattman, if you want a copy of the MEP's email confirming this then pm me and I'll forward on your email address to my contact. And yes you are absolutely correct in your decision to continue as are the huge amount of pilots in the same position that have been in contact. I wish you all the best

BizJetJock

6th May 2016, 13:44

In no way does part NCC dictate any requirement for a UK validation
Absolutely correct, this is a Part-FCL requirement.
Part -FCL came into effect in 2012, and states that crew of aircraft operated by an entity based in an EASA state must hold EASA licences or validations. Article 12.4 states that member states may elect to defer the implementation of this. Note may not must. The thing that has been put back again and again is the date to which they can defer.
So the CAA has decided that the deferral beyond August will only apply to PPLs effectively, and apparently some other countries have not taken up the deferral at all. The UK's policy therefore applies to aircraft whose operators are based in the UK, France's to French ones, etc.
Letters by an MEP sying that they meant the regulations to mean something else are as much use as yesterday's newspaper if you have an inspector grounding your aircraft because you do not meet the requirements that are actually there. If they meant them to mean something else then they should have written something else.
Having said that, I can't see how there is any way of enforcing it at a ramp check level, it can only be done at an operator audit level. I don't see there being many of those for Part-NCC operators for a long time.

Beaver100

6th May 2016, 14:57

I don't wish to argue with you and you are entitled to your opinion. You state operators in the UK but I don't think you have read the latest CAA info notice as operator outside the U.K. seems to be wrongly included too. It is cast iron from lead aviation policy Euro MP's in writing that the derogation applies to all EU countries as they state they represent them all, and it is unrestricted for remunerated and non remunerated, applying to all EU airspace. Not sure why you would argue against it.

BizJetJock

6th May 2016, 15:30

I agree that the CAA notice talks about airspace, which just goes to show that the rules are so stupidly complicated that even the authorities don't understand them. But again, how are the UK going to assess the base of the operator of a visiting aircraft in order to decide whether it applies even under their interpretation?
But with regards to MEPs, here is the regulation as published:
by way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.
Can you tell me how that can be interpreted as all countries will allow third party licences to be used? As I said, no amount of letters from an MEP saying they meant it to say something else is going to change it; they have to change the actual regulation.
The CAA, in their wisdom:E, have elected to only not apply the rule until August for pilots flying NCC type aircraft. That is 100% within what the rule says, however much we may disagre with it. Life can be tough sometimes.

Beaver100

6th May 2016, 15:48

The fact is that EU aviation laws have been a disaster in my opinion from the start, and countries generally fail to translate them correctly. That being said I'll stake my money on a statement from a lead Euro Aviation MP who is responsible for these regulations which they agree that the derogation includes all EU countries airspace, and all pilots including the ones that get paid to fly for a living. So we will just have to agree to disagree on NCC and licences, everyone I know states that NCC is not relevant to the type of licence that you hold and it clearly isn't.

this is my username

6th May 2016, 20:31

Here's the regulation:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1462566284646&uri=CELEX:32016R0539)

What is says is that member states may decide not to apply the require for an EASA licence. The default is that the requirement for an EASA licence is there unless the state specifically opts out.

Beaver100

7th May 2016, 07:44

The EU highest level policy makers have confirmed this is not the case, and that the derogation applies to all EU airspace and all EU countries. Common sense really, if this was the case then segregated airspace with opposing rules in a supposedly common EU aviation authority wouldn't work and is quite pathetic if we think about it logically. Could you ever see anything like this happening in the states ? I don't think so.

Pace

7th May 2016, 10:01

Beaver

Check your mail

Cathar

7th May 2016, 10:02

apruneuk

7th May 2016, 10:42

So, the safest bet would be to check with all member states that you intend to visit whether or not they have applied the derogation to 1178/2011, and if so, for how long. The UK CAA have clearly lost patience and have dovetailed their implementation date with that for Part NCC compliance ( for remunerated third country licence holders).
I would also check with insurers as to their stance; they don't need much encouragement to duck out of a claim!
AP

Beaver100

7th May 2016, 10:52

Cathar, sorry but that isn't the case at all. A specific set of questions was asked relating to theoretical flights ie depart one country that had opted out and landing in another that hadn't and the legality of the flight. The answer was very clear that it would be legal as the lead policy MEP of the team stated the derogation applies to all EU states as in their own words they are representing them all.

Further questions were asked in the initial stages regarding paid third country licenced pilots flying private aircraft based in Europe. The answer was again clear that this is allowed to continue until at least April next year

Pace, checked my PM but couldn't see a new message, can you resend ?

Pace

7th May 2016, 23:07

I would also check with insurers as to their stance; they don't need much encouragement to duck out of a claim!
AP

That would be an interesting one as EASA licenses are not legal or valid on the FAA aircraft being flown and if the pilot holds all the required legal licenses to fly that aircraft as well as the required medicals, type ratings etc the aircraft is legal
The EASA licenses are as useless as toilet paper and have no legal standing on an FAA aircraft so I would imagine not holding the EASA licenses would be a technical infringement rather than an aircraft illegality infringement but interesting point

Pace

8th May 2016, 21:12

I suspect that what the MEP was trying to tell you is that the derogation provision (Article 12.4 of Regulation 1178/2011) applies to all Member States. This is correct. However, as others have pointed out Article 14.4 does not automatically apply the derogation, rather the derogation is an option given to Member States to use or not to use as they see fit.

Also interesting is the commission state that the regulation if derogated to 2017 must be in its entirety, not part thereof

The CAA have removed pilots flying private aircraft for remuneration and dumped them under the classification of commercial operation when by EASA definition they are NON commercial

If those pilots are deemed to be non commercial then what the CAA are trying to do is not lawful and it would be up to a court to determine whether the EASA definition is correct or the CAA interpretation
But it's the commissions reference if derogated must be in its entirety which would mean commercial as defined by EASA not interpretated by the CAA

Also interesting is in previous years quite a few countries never derogated some who aviation authorities had no clue hence from the above many of us were operating into these countries illegally and some would claim uninsured as they are this very day
Never heard of a problem before so why now ?

this is my username

9th May 2016, 05:44

Hi Pace

Also interesting is the commission state that the regulation if derogated to 2017 must be in its entirety, not part thereof

Would be interested to see where the regs state that - not saying that it isn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

The latest derogation option here:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1462566284646&uri=CELEX:32016R0539)

says:

(3)
paragraph 4 of Article 12 is replaced by the following:
‘4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Member States shall make those decisions publicly available.’;

Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 say:

(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety
oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are
not used by a Community operator; or

(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for
which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or
used into, within or out of the Community by an operator
established or residing in the Community;

I don't see anything there which either requires a country to derogate (Beaver) or requires them to derogate on an "all or nothing" basis (Pace). If you have got the references to support your assertions then share them with us!

Beaver100

9th May 2016, 06:53

The relevant information has been forwarded to the many pilots that have requested it, and it is quite clear. The above generic link that you post is very basic, the EU Parliament and specific MEP group have chosen to make the derogation conditions clear in writing after answering specific questions. The answers are clear, there are no airspace restrictions as this derogation applies to the whole of the EU airspace and it applies to all remunerated and non remunerated pilots. This carries much more value to professional pilots than your link above.

The latest information notice from the UK CAA about this is incorrectly interpreted especially with regard to their definition of commercial operations which of course we don't apply.

Would also like to ask you are you posting about this because you have a specific issue with your professional colleagues trying to make a living ? or are you asking because this issue affects you in your job role ? If so let me know and you can have a copy delivered to you by email

this is my username

9th May 2016, 07:30

Hi Beaver

I'm posting because I have met too many pilots of third-country aircraft who have their head in the sand over this and as a result are all too ready to believe what a stranger says on a forum based on private emails which haven't been published rather than reading and understand what the regs say. That's largely because they don't like what the regs say and so it is much more convenient for them to believe something else.

When they get ramped or have an accident are the inspectors going to refer to unpublished emails or to what is written in the regulations?

I'll bow out now as I've said my piece. I really do hope that things work out in your favour. In the meantime I will keep working with the rules as they are written.

Beaver100

9th May 2016, 08:06

T.I.M.U. The current wording of the link that you previously posted I suggest has been incorrectly interpreted by the UK CAA, so if unchanged would need at least national level court intervention.
Coupled with that we have signed email statements from the MEP's who actually approved the derogation in their own words to apply to all EU countries, all EU airspace and all remunerated (or not) third country licenced pilots. I don't think it would be wise to ignore what they have stated.

It is absolutely imperative that this is cleared up as the MEP's quite rightly meant this derogation to mean something else entirely to your link or the UK CAA, their emails do have legal merit.

As for your other comments about pilots of third country aircraft I don't believe that is the case at all. They are all flying legally with the licences or validations of their state of aircraft registry. They have a right to question and challenge interventions to their livelihood, especially when those interventions from an unelected body (EASA) are vague, incorrectly written compared to EU policymakers statements and are ultimately against the human rights and employment laws of those professional pilots

Pace

9th May 2016, 11:00

Username

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 April 2016.

From your own link ;)

Member states have the choice to derogate or not but as stated the regulation shall be binding in its entirety
That does not mean part of, can be selective or reinterpret definitions which are already clearly determined and defined by EASA

Commercial is already clearly defined and does not mean pilots being paid to fly private aircraft.:ugh:

It is the entirety part where I think the CAA would trip up on their latest home made interpretation of commercial.

Strangely we made a challenge on validations based on what was commercial or not commercial and i have a letter from the head of CAA stating the mistake and that we are non commercial in our operations so they change opinion year to year

I personally feel there is a solid legal challenge potential there but will need to get advice. They have made wishful thinking mistakes before in my experience :E

Someflyer

9th May 2016, 11:04

Beaver,

Don't shoot the messenger here, but TIMU, Pace and many others are raising a genuine concern which deals with the legality of the process we are now facing.

At the end of the day, the European court will act upon the laws and rules published by the parliament and not by statements or intentions of a single or several MEP's.

I do recognize the authority of the MEP in question and her intentions to do the right thing but as an old instructor once told me "If it ain't written in the regs, It doesn't exist !" You can bring her emails to the poor pilots trial who just got caught flying only on his 3rd country license, and
you will see the judge throwing it out of the window because for him, it's like a note from your mother allowing you to play with your friends in the garden. He can not (and will not) make any ruling based on exchange of emails.

You can argue at the end of the day that these regulations are limiting our livelihood and therefor our human rights and ability to work, that is a completely different issue which if tackled correctly in court will probably bring the right results.

As for our friends from the FAA, the latest I hear is that they are confused by this matter. They are talking to EASA as the representing body of Europe, but now, every state is taking her own interpretation to these stupid regulations they don't know who they are suppose to clear this matter with.

It also looks like the UK CAA and the DGCA are deliberately trying to shoot down the attempts for 3rd country CPL/ATPL license holders Bi-lateral agreement which will probably mean several people loosing/changing jobs (we know how fond of that government employees are) so we are also looking at internal childish power struggles.

I said my piece, I will probably be off soon to Asia for a contract. I hope there I will be away from this European hornet nest that is bubbling so nicely lately.

Pace

9th May 2016, 11:12

At the end of the day, the European court will act upon the laws and rules published by the parliament and not by statements or intentions of a single or several MEP's.

I agree with that and it is up to those MEPs to get things changed if incorrectly instigated

my points above are to do with regulations and the letter of those regulations in Law and here I think the CAA have tripped up on their interpretations ENTIRETY being the key word and that leaves no scope to change definitions applied to the regulations by EASA to suit what some clever clogs regulator at the CAA want

I am sure these are just delaying tactics for the inevitable so I still hope the CAA might realise that they are dealing with people and their livelihoods
FAA in Europe has been legal established practice in the EU for longer than the EU has been in existence.
So much so that pilots had set up legitimate business for a long time.

i am sure these CAA employees would equally be horrified if their work and livelihoods were removed at the stroke of a political Pen
it was always historically that the CAA where damaging legislation change caused hardship to innocent people that some sort of grandfather rights were given. It would have been easy to have given restricted ATP or CPL restricted to private operations or annual validations for older pilots while they ran out their careers but the disregard of human rights to work or discrimination laws in treating these pilots as inhuman beings is disgusting

The vast majority of us take as much pride in our work as anyone and my aim is not to abolish these stupid regulations because that is what they are but to get these pilots treated with the respect and consideration they deserve by the authorities and not as vermin to be eliminated

Beaver100

9th May 2016, 11:49

Someflyer, it's a shame that you had to make those comments, you could have emailed my ex colleague who sent you the information if you wanted to discuss further. We felt from your response that you had some kind of pull higher up with the FAA ?

The emails from the MEP are just the start and other action is progressing, but I think it best left now to the pilots who appreciate our efforts. Good luck to all.

Someflyer

9th May 2016, 12:35

Beaver,

It's apparent that you have not read the first line of my post : "Don't shoot the messenger". I think I have raised a point which does have some implications and deserves an answer.

I'm truly sorry that you take it so personally. No one and certainly not me had any intention of having a go at you or your colleagues, On the contrary, I do admire the fact that you are so passionate about an issue that affects so many of us, However I think my point is valid and reading the
communications between you and the MEP is question, I still see a reason for skepticism.

My remark on the CAA is not based only on my own dealings (in fact, dealings with several CAA's and not only the UK one) but also of friends and colleagues which are in need to conduct their business with the authorities.

I did raised this matter with officials in the FAA and still waiting for them to come back but the general impression that I got is that they are confused as we are about the matter and it will take precious time until the FAA will be able to act upon the response it gets from EASA.

I will be looking for job outside Europe because I still need to feed my family and I need a job which doesn't have a sword hanging above it. I see no reason to apologise for that!

I do wish you and your friends the best of luck and from my little corner I will try to support the cause as much as I can (I will PM you any new info that may be transferred to me).

As I said, please take things as been written in a genuine concern and never in an attempt to undermine what you, or your friends are doing.

Happy flying

dc9-32

10th Jun 2016, 06:08

Forgive me if I have missed something in the thread but I cannot see this aspect covered. I can see and already understand that FAA part 91 is completely different to having an AOC. This thread covers what I see is aimed at corporate aircraft be they operated privately or commercially.

How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?

As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.

Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.

For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.

Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.

Beaver100

10th Jun 2016, 14:01

Official EASA worded rule is operator based or residing in the EU

UK CAA rule is wrongly interpreted to include third country operators with aircraft based in the UK (even temporarily) however they haven't corrected this yet.

Other EU countries also interpret it wrongly to include pilots based / living in their EU country.

Finally, if you fly N reg in the EU you are in a legal mess. The new regs would essentially leave you without a valid licence, FAA or EASA.

The EASA licence is only valid to fly N reg in the EU country that it is issued, so you would need a separate EASA licence from every other EU country you fly into. (See FAA legal decision below)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2014/graziano%20-%20(2014)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf

And of course EASA / individual CAA's are trying to restrict FAA licence holders in the same way, even though their licence is from the legal state of registry

Marlon Brando

10th Jun 2016, 22:56

Thanks Beaver for the document.

But it states that you can fly a N in a European country with an Easa licence issued in the same country.
Most a us are worried about a N plane in EU with a FAA licence.

Beaver100

10th Jun 2016, 23:29

Thanks Marlon I know this is the worry but how on earth can EASA force FAA licensed pilots flying N reg in Europe to get an EASA licence or validation when,

A. The EASA licence or CAA EASA validation is useless to fly N reg outside of the U.K. or other national airspace as confirmed above by FAA legal. You would need a separate EASA licence from every member state CAA

B. EASA are stipulating that FAA licences are also only valid in national airspace to fly N reg even though the FAA licence is the correct one from the state of registry

It essentially leaves the pilot with two licences that can't be used to fly N reg. Does anyone else see the problem here, and also that therefore EASA or individual CAA's cannot possibly enforce this.

Bidule

13th Jun 2016, 05:48

dc9-32

13th Jun 2016, 09:35

Bidule.

No Part 91 as stated.

Bidule

14th Jun 2016, 06:45

dc9-32

Thanks. I raised the question because I am not too familiar with the US regulations and I recently read that about Part 125:
"§125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.registered
civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum
payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved."

dc9-32

14th Jun 2016, 09:12

Thanks Bidule, but Part 91 still applies in the context of the question.

Mike Echo

14th Jun 2016, 11:16

dc9-32
Interesting thoughts.
Part NCC actually seems to have nothing to do with the aircraft or pilot but where the “Operator” is based and as like everything in EASA land it has a certain amount of vagueness.

The EU regulations define the principal place of business as “the head office or registered office of the organization within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities are exercised.” This definition leaves room for interpretation .
Sticking my head above the parapet I don’t think it matters whether the aircraft is Part 91 or 125. In the first example the Operator (operational control and Financial functions) is clearly outside EASA land, hence Part NCC shouldn't apply.

In the second case, again the Operator is outside EASA land, however, the aircraft is French registered. At this point I go blank as my understanding was that any complex aircraft registered in the EU would have to comply with Part NCC. I’m not clear and just cannot find a reference at the moment.
This could be a question for a regulator - but good luck getting an answer.

These are just my thoughts so others may know differently.

M.E.

dc9-32

14th Jun 2016, 11:33

Mike Echo
Well I managed to contact a regulator and according to the UK CAA, if the operator is based outside the EU and has it's principal business activity outside the EU, Part NCC does not apply to them regardless of where the aircraft is registered. Having tried to ask EASA the same question, they didn't even reply but I guess there's no surprise in that.

Beaver100

14th Jun 2016, 13:54

Interesting that the CAA have confirmed the above dc9-32 which does make sense of these useless regulations. However, their information notice of 3rd May should also be the same as above but instead states, 'All Third Country Operators, with aircraft based within the United Kingdom' and this is clearly wrong and should only apply to Operators based in the EU. It has yet to be changed though but clearly can be ignored as it isn't following the garbage they released from EASA earlier in April this year

this is my username

15th Jun 2016, 05:28

IN1171 relates to derogations from Aircrew Regulations not to Part NCC.

Beaver100

15th Jun 2016, 08:11

Well aware of that TIMU, but the UK CAA have confirmed that they are directly relating IN1171 to the part NCC date of 25 August (as in their own words they think it's a good idea, but it has no legislative basis) They are the only aviation authority that I know who having taken the full yearly derogation to have given a 25 Aug cut off date for paid pilots of non commercial ops, totally against what has been released by EASA. Further to this they are trying to include third country operators within IN1171 (3rd may release) so it is likely that perhaps they will try to do the same for part NCC which would also be incorrect of them

Hawker 800

7th Aug 2016, 07:32

Out of interest, how is everyone getting on with part NCC implementation? Are you finding it a struggle or easy? How are your third country licence guys getting on with conversions?

Did the CAA offer you any assistance?

apruneuk

7th Aug 2016, 10:00

The company that I fly for has been assessed as a complex operator due the number of staff/aircraft (M reg). We have effectively had to comply with the same requirements as an AOC holder, including SMS and FTL scheme. This process has been going on for the last couple of years and has involved employing specialist staff who have liaised with the various authorities. I am not sure how much help we have received from them as it's not my department. A condition of employment for pilots is that they have an EASA licence and medical regardless of any other licences that they may hold.
I understand that smaller operators may have less strenuous regulatory hoops to jump through but that the aircrew licensing rules are the same?

AP