EASA Lic for N Reg pilots domiciled EU.

[cessnapete]

N Reg Ops EU.
Met a guy recently, flying N Reg biz jet on FAA lic.based UK.
Keeps failing his EASA licence exams and is being laid off next week due the EASA dictat re EASA licence required for N Reg ops .
I thought the requirement had been delayed another year by EASA??

[Beaver100]

It has, 8th April 2017, Euro Parliament approved

[this is my username]

It has, 8th April 2017, Euro Parliament approved

Can you quote a regulatory reference for that? As far as I'm aware the CAA haven't issued an extension to the 8th April 2016 deadline.

[Fly4Business]

It has, 8th April 2017, Euro Parliament approved
Can you quote a regulatory reference for that? As far as I'm aware the CAA haven't issued an extension to the 8th April 2016 deadline.
It has not been officially published yet by the local authorities, but the decision is taken, documented here:
Wednesday, 9 March 2016 - Non-objection to an implementing measure: pilot training, testing and periodic checking for performance-based navigation (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2016-0074+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN)

The actual list of countries and their willingness to enact is documented in an Excel sheet to be found here: opt-out-from-regulations (https://www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/regulations/opt-out-from-regulations) - scroll down to downloads and get "Derogations from Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 as amended"

You are aware of the parallel thread (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/577139-n-reg-ops-eu-domiciled-pilots.html), so we may keep only one on the issue?

For BA flying and given the uncertainty with different european countries enactments, although my feelings are with the pilot being fired, but I do see the point of the employer as well. The pilot may relocate to outside EU and keep flying as is.

[moonym20]

I have read the link you sent, maybe it is me but I can only see reference to PPL holders in that document?

JetBlu posted a link on the private flying forum for CAA IN-2016/024 which confirms a delay... However we are now 3 days away from these changes.

I suspect the EASA reference on the post above is specific to PPL holders because a BSA for them is in the final stages. Unfortunately, for professional holders a BSA is still a long way off.

The CAA, for what it is worth, are not even aware that a BSA is taking place, this was taken from communication in March!

WTF is going on with these guys? :ugh:

[Pace]

The CAA, for what it is worth, are not even aware that a BSA is taking place, this was taken from communication in March!

They wouldn't be and don't get everything right anyway :E
Yes the BASA applies to PPL holders only and from what I gathered this morning the 3rd country and BASA are of one or none so jump to your own conclusion re commercial licenses and 3rd country ;)

Pace

[Beaver100]

Not true Pace, the draft regulation includes all third country licence holders and is worded more or less like last year. The full draft includes all of the information which Europarl have made law. An extract below,

'whereas the draft Commission regulation is aimed at, among other things, prolonging by one year an existing transition period for holders of a private pilot licence, from 8 April 2016 to April 2017;'

It is the 'among other things' which relates to third country licence holders engaged in Non Commercial Ops, which is included in the rest of the draft reg which is now law

[Beaver100]

And here is the part you require in the main part of the draft which is low law,

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.'
(4) Annexes I and VII are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.
Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of
the European Union.
It shall apply from 8 April 2016.

[moonym20]

Personally I would struggle discerning 'other things' to mean that could/would/should include professional licence holders.

Historically the CAA normally release an update on either Feb or March each year confirming (another) delay. This year has been slightly different. Would this be because the individual handling this is out of office until several days after the 8th?

Does no one else join me in thinking this is a huge mess?? :ugh:

[Beaver100]

Full lawful draft regulation here regarding third country non commercial ops licence holders now ok to 8 April 2017.
No one needs to lose a job over this, as you can see it's been extended another year

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5513-2016-INIT/en/pdf

[this is my username]

... but it is a draft, doesn't come in to effect until it is enacted.

[Beaver100]

The Commission presented the draft to the EU Parliament. The EU Parliament raised no objections and it was implemented into law on the 8th March 2016 which you can see from a previous posters link above, hence this draft is now lawful.

[moonym20]

Thanks for the link to the document.

(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

Member States may decide....

The CAA has not yet communicated to me, or anyone that I am aware of their decision to delay or not. They have insinuated that they might. But so far have failed to release anything official to state they have. Instead we have a circle of Chinese whispers 'my mate said this' 'well, in an email to me they said that'....

It is the may in the statement above that gives me doubt. I say again... WTF are the CAA doing?? :ugh:

[Fly4Business]

The Commission presented the draft to the EU Parliament. The EU Parliament raised no objections and it was implemented into law on the 8th March 2016 which you can see from a previous posters link above, hence this draft is now lawful.
Once again, if and only if, the country enacted it.

Set clear from the head text in the EASA derogation table already linked above:
In accordance with Commission Regulation (EU)1178/2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew, as amended by Commission Regulation, (EU) 290/2012, 245/2014 and 445/2015, EU Member States and EFTA States may decide to postpone the application of certain provisions. When EU Member States and EFTA States decide to do so, they have an obligation to notify the European Commission and the Agency.

Each country has to notify EU/EASA when they opt-out, some did not follow already a year ago and will not this time. UK CAA did opt-out according to the derogation table.

[Beaver100]

I think it's the CAA's intention to enact the derogation, judging by their latest information notice in which they agree that additional year is to facilitate a BASA with the FAA.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=7251

[Someflyer]

Trying to get a straight answer from the CAA is like getting water out of a stone....

What is the bottom line then ? Can the UK CAA invoke this ruling even if not all member states have agreed to the derogation ?

At the end of the day, will I be able to fly my N regitered aircraft around Europe without having an EASA license and what are the chances that they will get the BASA for ATPL holders done in this period... ?

Questions questions, I know, but many people lives are going to be changed because of EU bureaucrats power hunger and not because of real safety concerns !

[moonym20]

This is the thing though.... because the CAA has said done nothing to confirm or deny a delay everyone effected is now say 'i think' or 'they may'....

I'm not really bashing the CAA or anything... I just believe they are handling this whole fiasco in a dismal manor. Again, this is the same NAA who claim to know nothing about a BSA with the FAA in any capacity. When pushed further, simply blame EASA, close their eyes and hum a tune....

[Someflyer]

Our ops manager had a very informative conversation with the CAA.
Apparently they are confused as we are from whatever Brussels is doing...

In the next few days they are expected to publish a two month extension to the derogation after which they expect to have the information from Brussels and extend the derogation officially to April 2017.

However, as it was pointed out, the problem is not the new EASA FCL requirements but the part NCC new regulation that will prevent third party pilots to use their licenses in Europe.. (and that's kicking in August if I recall correctly)

Watch this space.

[Pace]

i) Update on on-going Commission adoption procedures – Information by the Commission
- Regulation 1178/2011 Flight Crew Licensing, amendment delaying the implementation of the provisions for third country pilots licences. The Commission advised that the amendment is moving through the Council and Parliament co-decision process and should be in place by 8 April 2016. The change is intended to allow additional time to conclude a change to the EU-US bilateral aviation safety agreement to include new arrangements for Flight Crew Licensing.

See above which shows the Commission decision
There is a meeting tomorrow Wednesday in Brussels and I hope a lot more clarity by friday

[cessnapete]

UK AOPA confirmed in latest magazine.
Implementation delayed until at least 4/2017

[moonym20]

AOPA has insider knowledge? Haven't had access to my copy yet... But thinking of print time... Mail time and editing... I'm curious that they proclaim this, even though the CAA themselves have not uttered a word to confirm the delay yet?

If it really is true, what does it say about the CAA??

[Someflyer]

I Don't think you can fault the CAA this time (although they provide plenty of opportunities to do so). They don't have the luxury of speculating what to do and they need to wait for EASA to publish the guidelines.

AOPA probably followed the logical path from the EU Parliament decision on 08/03 and made an "Educated guess".

[Fly4Business]

AOPA may not necessarily have more knowledge then is available from official side on the web. As stated and linked above, the EASA Derogation Excel Sheet lists the CAA as having applied for all opt-out.

[Pace]

Whispers are that the regulations re third country are not workable without certain consents by mainly the FAA. This is a ridiculous scenario which I am happy about that the 3rd country regs have been in place since 2011 yet are still not enabled and won't be till earliest 2017 or longer

Sidelined for six years? Why? because they are being nice to us poor pilots ? I doubt it :E more likely they don't legally stand up without a BASA and counter signatures and agreements with the FAA

Other Whispers are that the BASA expected in November only apply to PPL flying so the 3rd country regs will still remain illegal on CPL ATPL until a BASA is agreed on Commercial licenses and that could take years

There is a lot not being said to explain what has caused these regs to have been sidelined for so long and the real reasons behind that? My Guess another EASA mess-up and like the rest of the EU I don't suppose they know what they are doing either

EASA was nearly disbanded by the commission years ago for trying to reinvent the wheel! Why they didn't take the FAA system lock stock and Barrel and adjust it to suit EU requirements God knows. It would have saved 100s of millions of EU money and a lot of aviation a mass of headaches. it would also have lead to an international standardisation of regulations and hence safety in aviation
But no that was too simple too cost effective and too pro aviation for the EU

Pace

[Someflyer]

Last I heared was that PPL BASA will be effective this year. But the CPL/ATPL will take, as Pace mentioned, years. But the fault is not EASA but the FAA

Rumors about pressure groups (some of my sources are mentioning ALPA) that are pushing the FAA to stall these regulatory amendments on purpose in order to "Protect the US market"...

If this is the case, is there a way to counter pressure the FAA ?? maybe get the NBAA to join in by noting how many Biz jet drivers will be affected (In the end bit they will loose members in favor of their European counterparts).

Is there a way to make the FAA do the right thing ??

[Beaver100]

It isn't the fault of the FAA. Michael Brown from the FAA is working on the BASA and states,
'While there have been some initial discussions regarding the expansion of the agreement to include commercial and ATP licenses/certificates, there has been no formal proposal on this course of action. Should EASA opt to expand the agreement, I’m sure the FAA would respond favorably, and work toward that end would commence right away. That said, my guess would be that it would take an additional year (at least) to formalize such an agreement.'

As stated the latest delay to April 2017 applies to all third country licence holders involved in non commercial operations

[Pace]

Beaver

And that brings the point that if the PPL agreement is complete before 2017 but not the commercial aspect the 3rd country regulations for CPL ATP will have to be delayed further for those license holders as the needed BASA will only be relevant to PPL holders

[Beaver100]

Of course it will take longer but it's up to EASA to make the move. Regardless, the current draft regulation now law by Europarliament applies to all third country licenced pilots flying for non commercial operations. They can now fly to 8 April 2017.

[Someflyer]

Beaver,

Sorry for the ignorance but I don't know who Michael Brown is. All I know is that this is now a blame game between the two agencies which no one is going to come out better off.

There is another threat though in the horizon which nobody right now is addressing and it is the Part NCC coming in August which, despite the derogation (Which still have no official announcement or publication that confirms the delay) will end up
with the same result e.g third party CPL/ATPL will not be able to fly in Europe without EASA license.

[Mike Echo]

It crosses my mind that there may be a potential problem arising in August with Part NCC. The declaration that has to be signed includes that "all Flight crew members..... are trained in accordance with the applicable requirements."
I suspect that the "applicable requirements" is or was intended to cover the issues of FCL
Do the more knowledgeable ones here think there is a problem or am I just overthinking this and that these are totally separate?

[Beaver100]

I think there has been a misunderstanding, EASA Part NCC most definitely does not stipulate that you need an EASA licence to fly a non EU registered aircraft with EU based Operator.

Also you have to ask why would it when they have just extended until 8 April 2017.

[Mike Echo]

Ok, but I'm not miss understanding anything and agree that NCC does not stipulate anything. However, I do think there is a lot of details that may bite in the future with unintended/intentional consequences
I'll drop out of this thread but watch with interest.

[Pace]

You cannot trust EASAs slight of hand or motivations

Pace

[DirtyProp]

Why they didn't take the FAA system lock stock and Barrel and adjust it to suit EU requirements God knows. It would have saved 100s of millions of EU money and a lot of aviation a mass of headaches. it would also have lead to an international standardisation of regulations and hence safety in aviation
But no that was too simple too cost effective and too pro aviation for the EU

Because in that case the paper-shufflers and such would have had a hard time to justify their jobs and relative paychecks.
Many public agencies don't serve the community but just themselves.

On top of that, if a guy already has an FAA license with all ratings perfectly valid in Easa-land, no FTO will be able to make much money out of him.
No validation, no checks, no FEES.
Not good for local business and local CAA.

[Jetblu]

Nail, head, hammer right there! ^^

[moonym20]

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1163..pdf

Refer to the above link.

There is a delay of one month to May 7th 2016.

Why only one month? Who knows, I don't even think the CAA knows.

:ugh:

[this is my username]

.... Because it is a temporary exemption which has been put in place until EASA actually get their act together and extend the opt-out option ...

It also only applies to UK airspace.

[Pace]

Until things have been officially tied up and the CAA officially informed I cannot see what else they can do but cover for a short period of time.
Maybe the regulators and all concerned in Brussels should get their act together and spend less time in wine bars on lavish expense accounts and instead do their work which they are paid a fortune of needless wasted EU money to do ?

Pace

UK Licence Validation Requirements for Holders of ICAO Annex 1 Flight Crew Licences
1. The Civil Aviation Authority (“the CAA”), on behalf of the United Kingdom, pursuant to article 14(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008, exempts any holder of a pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country, from the requirements of paragraph A of Annex III to Commission Regulation (EU) No.1178/2011 concerning validation of licences by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority as competent authority, where:
a. There is no agreement concluded between the EU and the third country covering pilot licences; and
b. The licence holder does not comply with the validation requirements of Annex III; and
c. The holder wishes to exercise the privileges of the licence on a flight which is not for commercial purposes in an aircraft specified in Article 4(1) a, b or c of Regulation (EC)
No. 216/2008; and
d. Aircraft operation is conducted within UK airspace.
2. This Exemption has effect from 8 April 2016 until 7 May 2016, or until a derogation under Article 14(6) Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 applies, whichever is the earlier.
S Baugh
for the Civil Aviation Authority
7 April 2016
Explanatory Note:
Temporary exemption from the requirements of Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011 Annex III requiring the holders of ICAO Annex 1 flight crew licence holders to have their licences validated. This will enable continued operations pending confirmation of extension to 8 April 2017 of the EU Commission opt-out and subsequent UK derogation from the requirements specified in Regulation (EU) No. 1178/2011 Annex III.
The latest version of this document is available in electronic format at Publications | UK Civil Aviation Authority (http://www.caa.co.uk/publications), where you may also register for e-mail notification of amendments.
7 April 2016 Page 1 of 1

[moonym20]

We knew anyway there was yet another delay and NAA's could opt out. When it arrives on the EASA website Doc 2016/539
"COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2016/539
of 6 April 2016 amending Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 as regards pilot training, testing and periodic checking for performance-based navigation"


-Contained therein-

Page L91/1

"

(5) The period during which Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 in their territory to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of certain aircraft should be extended, because of the ongoing negotiations of the Union with certain third countries aimed at facilitating the conversion of such licences and medical certificates. It should be clarified that, where a Member State takes or has taken such a decision, it should publish that decision in an appropriate manner which allows all parties concerned to take note of it and ensures that the requirements of transparency and legal certainty are fulfilled."


-And-
Page 91/3

"(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.’"


Understanding now, the UK CAA have not seen this document themselves yet, or are not aware of it (!) and issued a one month delay until they have further news. Does that make sense to folks? :ugh:

[Pace]

the UK CAA have not seen this document themselves yet, or are not aware of it (

So what does that tell us ? Too much time in wine bars :E by our friends in Brussels
That change was voted by the commission weeks ago

Pace

[Someflyer]

Since this deals with UK CAA position, Does anyone of other European agencies (French DGCA for example) which are following the same route ?

[Underrated and Moderated]

More interestingly re the above comment.....

If the UK CAA do decide to delay until the next year....where does it leave all of us with licences that want to fly to say, France or any other EU state that has already enforced the regulation, if we are flying on an FAA ATP/CPL/PPL????!

We've all been flying across the EU since other EU states already made the Third Country Licence Validation rubbish, a requirement.....would we fail a ramp check? What could they do about it? I'm still half convinced that telling an FAA pilot, with a current 61.58 on a type he/she flies, with insurance, medical etc etc, that he/she can't fly out of an EU airfield anymore is illegal. How would it stand up in court? What can they do if I tell them to blow it out of their :mad:?!

I asked the CAA.....their guy wrote to me (after calling me and speaking to me about my set up) and essentially said "Well....we would be really cross....and err....you just can't....and....we would impound your bosses aircraft!!" Yeah right pal....like to see how that works for you, when my Russian billionaire boss gets told he can't take off in his plane that is legal in every respect in the eyes of the authority that its registered to, the FAA and the crew all hold the correct, full, current ratings etc!!

Im actually sitting here, looking forward to sitting my final 61.58 sim session tomorrow, immediately followed by a frigging EASA LST, just in case those arses make me go ahead and get a validation!!! What a frigging farce....how about i send the bill for it to the CAA?!! :ooh:

[Beaver100]

As long as your aircraft documentation is in order from your state of aircraft registry then a ramp check cannot penalise you. Their remit is to check state of registry documents, nothing more, even states that in their guidance notes. I would save your money on the LST.

[Underrated and Moderated]

Thanks folks......however.....i dont have an EASA Part FCL. I'm an FAA guy and my understanding is, that for me to get a validation, based on my FAA, then any types i am current on, on my FAA, need to be added to a validation, by way of an LST??

Incidentally, FlightSafety havent got a clue about all the changing reg's or Third Country licensing etc......its a complete mess here. Also, the guy doing the LST is one of these Easa examiners, in a third country that doesnt actually have an easa licence, but a validation to issue initial and ongoing types to an easa licence. If it wasnt my livelihood, rather than cry, I would just laugh.

Roll on the safety agreement for all licences.....

[Underrated and Moderated]

Further.....do you really, think I should tell them to stick the LST and come home a day earlier....I was after all, away all the school holidays, in my "rostered off" period??? I mean, the delay in the requirement looks to me like it will be put back another year.....just the CAA have failed to read that particular piece of paper and publish it, surely?

[Beaver100]

Yes, tell them to stick the LST

[Pace]

UAM

I am with you all the way on this. I am reliably informed that given enough money there is enough now to make a legal challenge in the EU courts against this ridiculous charade of dual licensing but sadly enough money is the key words

Pace

[Hawker 800]

Thanks folks......however.....i dont have an EASA Part FCL. I'm an FAA guy and my understanding is, that for me to get a validation, based on my FAA, then any types i am current on, on my FAA, need to be added to a validation, by way of an LST??


I don't see how you can get a validation. The process is not in place yet. I'd not bother with the EASA LST. The UK are not issuing validations yet, if ever, for biz jet guys.

You need to look at CAA IN-2016/036

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=7305

[Pace]

if ever, for biz jet guys.

The 3rd country regulations appear to be legally dependent on a BASA. The delay till 2017 not enacted yet probably means that those regulations on their own are illegal anyway
The expected agreement with the USA is for PPL stuff only hence the regulations will become legal only for PPL stuff and not for commercial until a BASA is agreed on commercial

They have not delayed for six years for nothing and certainly not for their kindness and understanding of us pilots
The whole thing is a shambolic mess and a legal minefield

[Underrated and Moderated]

Hawker 800.....not correct. the validation process has been in place for a long time. HOWEVER...its a temp validation, useful for a year from issue and, can be extended once, if you can demonstrate that you have started and are attempting to complete the ground school exams that, may not have kept you alive up until now if you are an FAA guy, but certainly will, once you have an EASA ticket, apparently :mad::roll eyes:

The validation involves proving you have an FAA ticket, demonstrating 1500 hours of multi crew time, a Class 1 EASA Medical being issued and also, an LST, on the type you want to fly if you want it added to your validation. I meet all this criteria, but have to do the LST (still planned for today unless I see a doc confirming the delay until 2017 from the CAA), which is valid for 6 months and would add my current type to my licence.

I originally started flying as a demo/sales pilot for an American manufacturer, who didn't even have the EASA Type Cert on their aircraft at the time and so I needed an American licence to fly their aircraft. I never bothered with the EASA ticket because my intention was never to fly for a living....but one thing followed another and here I am, 11 years later....rated in 4 types (3 multi crew) and am staring down the barrel of no job, just having got a mortgage, 2 small children, a little bit of credit card debt, a car on lease etc etc. Pace....I am very happy to fight the EU/EASA on this. I do believe that the last time this all reared its head, a group of people with a bit more cash were getting together and had made noises directly at EASA re suing them for this illegal rule change and actually, the argument against the establishment, seemed to hold water, from a legal standpoint too. However, that seems to have gone quiet for us Pro licence holders...who arguably, despite more rigorous and regimented training and recurrent checks (if we are typed on larger, complex, multi crew, multi engine aircraft), are being looked at, AFTER the (in some cases) recreational, bimble around airways in little piston, leisure pilots?! I know of ONE guy who is a very wealthy, UK based FAA pilot, who owns his own 3 holer, who is prepared to fight EASA (and is doing so)...but he keeps himself to himself I think. I know another owner pilot, who i used to fly with who has STACKS of cash, but who is just burying his head in the sand and doing, nothing, in the hope he doesn't get caught, or that he has enough money to fight it if he is. Doesn't help the rest of us.

I'm all up for having the right to fly for fun etc (and I still do myself when I can)....but they should be looking at Third Country Licensing as a whole, not deal with the "well heeled", leisure folks who, more often than not, have their income and livelihoods firmly planted in a different industry altogether.

Us "third country simpletons" (a phrase one guy sed re FAA licences!!) need to stand together....no matter what licence we hold. The FAA over here (I'm in USA right now) haven't got any idea really, that the EASA are implementing these restrictions on us....one senior guy said that EASA couldn't stop an FAA pilot flying anywhere as long as he has the FAA ducks in a row...."...none of their Goddamned business!" he said!! :ok:

Sorry....rattled on....you can maybe tell I'm passionate about this?!

[Pace]

The validation involves proving you have an FAA ticket, demonstrating 1500 hours of multi crew time, a Class 1 EASA Medical being issued and also, an LST, on the type you want to fly if you want it added to your validation. I meet all this criteria, but have to do the LST (still planned for today unless I see a doc confirming the delay until 2017 from the CAA), which is valid for 6 months and would add my current type to my licence.

UAM

Just a correction to the above you are referring to a validation to fly public transport not private! So if you are only flying private jets which are not public transport the above does not apply 100% sure
So someone has given you incorrect information and needless money expenditure unless you want a validation for public transport

I am hoping for confirmation today but my understanding is the whole 3 rd country regulations are dependent on a BASA with the 3rd countries and this is governed by international laws and agreements and not just EU law hence the six year delays achieving a BASA. There is a fly in the legal soup the one won't go without the other. If that is the case and don't read it as gospel yet it could be some considerable time before a BASA is achieved on commercial stuff its taken long enough on PPL stuff

the chaos at present is the usual EU incompetence

[Hawker 800]

Precisely Pace.

I am not aware of anyone involved in private biz jets thats ever succeeded in gaining an EASA validation based on a US certificate. It's a waste of his money. Let's hope he's not in the sweat box right now doing a pointless EASA LST based upon some not so (understandably) knowledgable FSI EASA validated examiner's advice.

[Above The Clouds]

The validation involves proving you have an FAA ticket, demonstrating 1500 hours of multi crew time, a Class 1 EASA Medical being issued and also, an LST, on the type you want to fly if you want it added to your validation. I meet all this criteria, but have to do the LST (still planned for today unless I see a doc confirming the delay until 2017 from the CAA), which is valid for 6 months and would add my current type to my licence.

To be honest if you have all of the above with an LST completed why don't you just do the required exams and have an EASA license issued, there is also dispensation for some of the exams based on experience.

[Pace]

there is also dispensation for some of the exams based on experience.

What dispensation ? The only exam that should be required to convert FAA ATP to EASA is Air Law nothing else

[Underrated and Moderated]

Sorry....just been finishing off my 61.58 in the rocking box!! AND doing a load of extra :mad: for the LST, which I have to sit (according to my Chief Pilot) ...."...in case I need to get a validation issued by the CAA, so I can keep flying a year more..."!!

There is no dispensation re exams Above The Clouds.....none. You have to do them all. Easy to say "Do the exams..."....but try, part time, with kids, job, yarda yarda...!! There are a shed load of bright sparks, out of Uni.....full time at Bristol and Oxford etc, that are failing....a lot more than you think....!!

Prove to me that the exams will make me a better pilot and I will find a way....but they won't....its bull:mad:

Pace.... do you think that, because of the BASA being so far away, that the delay will keep happening year on year, or do you think they will ground all of us, useless, dangerous FAA pilots and then say in 4 years time "Oh...if you real now, we will let you have a validation?!"

[Pace]

Even Bristol have complained about the low pass rates for the EASA ground studies for ATP and their complaints ignored
If you are a working pilot with family commitments what are you expected to do? Take six months off to do a full time course? Will your job still be there at the end I doubt it or maybe do distant learning for 1 to 2 years again tricky with Job and family commitments.
its hard to be motivated to do all that study just to do what you are doing perfectly safely weekly anyway.
As for you should know it anyway? I was speaking to an EASA ATP who told me if he sat the exams tomorrow there is no way he would pass its short term recollective stuff.

I am not sure and waiting on confirmation but if its true that the six year deferments are due to a fly in the legality of the EASA regulations which will require a BASA due to International laws and agreements to be legal then I cannot see how the EASA regulations can be stand alone legal. As the BASA expected in November only relates to PPL licenses then if that is the case the third country regulations can only be effective with PPL stuff and cannot be legal on CPL or ATP legislation till the FAA and other 3rd countries agree in the form of a BASA.

All I am sure of is that there is no way the Commission has delayed year on year for six years because they think that you and i are nice guys and should be given some Slack.

I tend to believe there are legal problems with it all

Pace

[Underrated and Moderated]

Interestingly....it looks like the CAA have just released their intention, in their recent mailshot today, saying they intend to delay another year.

I agree, I believe the legality of it stinks.....from your human right to work, to "It's okay for airline people to fly in and out on all mixes of different licences....but not you!"...to the "You have to demonstrate compliance re Icao Part 6 Ann 2 and/or Part NCC....but it won't be as safe as other people who have exactly the same reg's in place.

Overall, it stinks. I believe they know it stinks and as I have said before, if i/we just carried on and ignored it....what they gonna do huh? I mean, what? Take me to court....for what??? Holding a licence, a damned current EASA LST (hopefully...in 3.5 hours?!), a current medical (both EASA and FAA), a current 61.58, insurance for the aircraft etc??? Lets see what a judge makes of that!!

I know of TWO operators now that have gone down the "Get :mad:.....I aint doing a damned thing....let them try to stop me!!!!!" approach and, you know what? Maybe they have it about right!!!

[Pace]

U and M The CAA are OK and I have found them very helpful in the past but their hands are tied They were very helpful over the validation requirements you printed above. Even the CAA make mistakes and having scared the life out of two pilots I know recognised those requirements as for public transport not private and having sent it all to licensing came back with the correct interpretation.

FAA has been a thorn in the side for decades long before EASA or even the EU and there were many many attempts to legally stop it which all failed.

I am sure when EASA was formed the problem was given to their legal department who came up with the dual licensing solution after pressure from certain powerful lobbying elements.

Of course as a new body with a blank sheet they could have put something into place which would have meant FAA in Europe as well as other flags of convenience would have died a steady death because what EASA could have done would have been more attractive. The laws of the market place.

The regulations have been set aside now since 2011. Six years since they were put in place.
A ridiculous length of time and unfair to pilots who work under FAA because its a shadow hanging over our heads and we don't know where we stand.

EASA claim the search for a BASA as the reason I now believe they have to have that BASA for the legal framework to operate legally because of international laws treaties and agreements and we are not even starting on EU working rights or age discrimination rights for some pilots who would be forced into early retirement as the costs and efforts required would not be worthwhile with their time left in the industry

So it all looks a mess and this latest mess up is inexcusable and for sure the delays every year since 2011 are not anything to do with us the pilots
Maybe it will all just die a death and go away

Pace

[Beaver100]

I'm not a legal expert but Article 263 below may be a way to challenge.

Article 263 provides that ‘any natural or legal person may…institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them’.

Direct concern
The Treaty does not define 'direct concern' but the case law of the Court of Justice gives guidance on the meaning of the term. The Court has indicated that the applicant must show a direct link or an unbroken chain of causation between the act and the loss or damage suffered.

Flag up all this mess to the Brexit camp too

[Above The Clouds]

U & N - Pace
I will check with a colleague, he had an ICAO ATPL and was exempt 3 of the exams.

What I don't understand is you are complaining about the possibility of having no job with a family to support but having completed so much why not just get your head down and complete the exams to have an EASA license issued then problem solved.

I hold FAA and EASA ATPLs both independent of each other but I had the UK one first many years ago, then employment was offered on an FAA registered aircraft but I had to study to obtain an FAA license with type rating otherwise no job, there was no freebie, what's the difference going the other way FAA to EASA to get or keep your job ?

[Beaver100]

Apples and Oranges. He already holds a correct licence for the state of aircraft registry and has already been flying his company aircraft with it. An EASA licence should not be required

[Pace]

ATC

Firstly I have a friend who has just achieved his EASA ATPs after flying foreign reg on Midsize Biz Jets. He was replaced off his current position for 6 months on full pay with a very understanding Boss went to Oxford full time. HE failed and it dragged for 1.5 years before he completed and past the 14 exams

For myself I would be no good at distant learning I need the structure of a full time course but if I took six months away I would come back to no aeroplanes to fly :E

So really we were promised at the start of all this a BASA for PPL and Commercial Licenses and I had hoped for a much more realistic conversion like why not ? Air Law ?
So yes thats an option but then I am an older pilot and any pilot approaching say 60 is going to think is it worth the hassle and huge expense just to carry on doing what you are already doing quite happily and safely. I haven't killed anyone yet in 30 years of flying a lot in hard IFR and in Piston twins and 15 years in jets ;)

So there is the motivation factor! If I was 30 or even 40 a no brainer

Lastly the principal That this was instigated by two small pressure groups mainly french with a lot of power and its a sour grapes move to eliminate N reg in the EU . Achieving and maintaining two sets of licenses when the one has no validity on the aircraft you fly :ugh: Madness

If something makes sense and its fair then it ticks a box with me. This is non sense and not fair and doesn't tick the box to a section of European flying which is well established and where some pilots have built legitimate careers for longer than the EU has been in existence.
Why because most private jets were N or other flags and if thats what you wanted to fly thats what you had to do.

Its not our fault that so many N reg were allowed to develop in Europe so why should we suffer for failings in the authorities which allowed them to develop so extensively if they didn't want them.

Has EASA offered any Grandfathering rights for established pilots NO have EASA tried to accommodate older pilots by offering annual validations until they run their careers out ? NO

So yes the exams are one way to go but will need to think whether its worth it
And yes if a wealthy guy wanted to challenge this shambles in the EU courts and took along a battalion of lawyers The commission would have to act or shut down this ridiculous legislation

Thinking about how much I write on pprune maybe if I stuck pprune on top of the exam headings I would sail through the distant learning :ok:

Pace

[Underrated and Moderated]

Above The Clouds.....how many years ago? How many of the 14 exams did you do? How many types did you hold at conversion? How many exams did the FAA make you sit and were they relevant to flying a plane, or were they questions like "How does the surface temperature get affected by Solar flares in Winter, in the Southern Hemisphere?" A) Who knows B) Who cares C) Ask a BA 777 Captain and watch his head explode or D) It's not relevant to flying an aircraft!!!

Seriously though....how many people got grandfather rights? Until a year or so back, how many people who could demonstrate flying an airliner on an FAA ticket for more than 3000 hours or something (exact rule eludes me) got given JAR licenses? I don't know, but they used to hand them out like confetti.....no reported accidents as a result. And thats the key. It's to do with politics. It isn't to do with flight safety. It isn't to do with bringing up the base level of intellect, or demonstrating knowledge....its politics. I say again,if BGS and Oxford etc have been seeing more failures of late....its way more likely that this is down to the system, not the methods and not the teachers.

I've just passed the EASA LST, just in case I need it (I won't....but the company wanted it done to be sure). It was a very straight forward test, as usual (done them before and sat alongside as co jo, for many of my EASA counterparts for their rides). Harder, more complex, more comprehensive than an FAA skills test??? No. Does it show that I'm above FAA level of skill? No. Does it show that I can operate a complex Jet, safer than an FAA pilot? No. Was there anything in it, that demonstrated anything above an FAA test in any way? No.

The irony??? The Examiner is an FAA Examiner, with a kind of validation that allows him to hand out initial issue, recurrent OPC/LPC tickets etc, until the sun comes down. He's never held a European licence of any kind.....although I think he said he had a fishing licence once, when he was based in the UK for a while.....maybe he had a TV licence too....but never a Euro licence that allowed him to fly!!! :ugh::suspect:

Come on....tell me that this isn't politics and bureaucracy at its most laughable!

[Pace]

U and M

Of course its politics and self interest groups and not safety
The world is becoming a smaller place. Just look at the millions of Syrians pouring through our boarders into the EU and more and more rather than just freedom of movement around Europe there will be a need for freedom of movement of pilots to work wherever.

EASA could have saved a fortune in tax payers money. They had a blank sheet and could have taken the tried and tested FAA system adjusted it to suit Europes specific needs and made compatibility of licenses easy but instead chose to make a complicated mess.

Those interested in safety would have one word HARMONISATION as that is the only way to go where there is no chance of confusion or lack of knowledge worldwide so EASA was a big mistake as are most decisions made by the EU

Why did this happen? to make EASA a large organisation employing many regulators with loads of work with their interests at heart not aviations or safety and these regulations are typical of the nonsense churned out of the EU

Pace

[Above The Clouds]

U & M
How many of the 14 exams did you do? How many types did you hold at conversion? How many exams did the FAA make you sit

Well as you asked actually more than 14.

UK MEP/IR ground exams x 6 - 1988
UK CPL grounds exams x 15 - 1991
UK JAR ATPL ground exams x 10 - 1999

FAA ATP, 121 and 135 ground exams - 1994

All passed first time with no freebies, no grandfather rights (those were only given to US pilots flying temporarily for UK airlines in the 90's) just got on with it and still keep both current so hopefully there won't be a problem with future employment in either part of the world ;)

[Pace]

ATC Congratulations :ok: But this is not the point being made. You obviously had a need for both licenses.

If I was offered a lucrative position flying a EASA reg Jet I would have no qualms doing the financial Maths and time before I was required for that Job and I would expect to gain and hold the required licenses to fly that jet.

Even If I decided my plans were to fly for an AOC because there was more work for me there then again I do the Maths and decide if the large expenditure is worth the result ?

This is very different! I do not want to fly for an AOC and haven't been offered a lucrative Job on an EASA reg jet in nine months time.

I have selected N reg as that was where I saw my opportunities lay within Europe
I financed and achieved all the license s required to fly, be legal and open that market to myself a perfectly legal and legitimate market.

Now I am told I have to achieve a whole host of other licenses which have no validity on the aircraft I fly. Will cost me a lot financially and even more in my time and frankly which have no relevance to what I am doing

Is there any rational thinking concerning aviation safety in this ? or any rational thinking which is anything more that utter nonsense in these regulations ? And morally who pays ? ME and why ? What have I done ?

In the past a lot was done with Grandfather rights in the good old CAA days where legislation changes harmed pilots through no fault of their own. Where are the grandfather rights in this case to keep us in our work ?

As stated if someone with enough money to hire a load of lawyers took this on in the EU courts they would make mincemeat of these stupid regulations

I have been assured of that but don't have the money otherwise I would gladly do that because it is wrong and dishonest

Pace

[Journey Man]

I have selected N reg as that was where I saw my opportunities lay within Europe

Landscapes change. Change with them. Or rail on here at people who have no influence.

[Beaver100]

Attitudes like that Journey Man are responsible for the current mess of our country.
Who knows maybe the next EASA reg will curtail your career for no good reason

[Pace]

Or rail on here at people who have no influence.

With that attitude you might as well shut down pprune ? I post on the EU vote as a Brexit supporter in the Jet Blast forum.
My opinions won't make a scrap of difference other than maybe making a handful of people change their minds but to the vote itself ? No difference as in any other forum here

But I was part of a group who did make legal representation to the Commission and helped with the 2014 delay on this rubbish

But if you are the sort of guy who lies on his back and puts his feet up in the air so be it! You will only get your tummy tickled by whoever :E

Pace

[Marlon Brando]

Does This regulation apply to pilot domiciled in EU, N aircraft based in EU, owner based in in...?.

The "base" definition is probably something to check out.
I'm not a lawer though

[Journey Man]

Attitudes like that Journey Man are responsible for the current mess of our country.

Overy grandiose, Beaver.


Pace, whilst I sympathise, I have read quite a few of your posts and you've got a very narrow perspective heavily influenced by your non-commercial experience. You make light of issues which negatively affect commercial operators, yet seem surprised that everyone isn't on your side when you disagree with something. You can tickle my tummy anyway, if it makes you feel better.

[Pace]

Journey Man

Commercial operations ? Expand on that ? These are Private operations and surpringly private jets flown by professional crew have a better safety record than AOC operations!
Maybe because the aircraft are flown by the same crew, better cared for etc but those statistics puzzled the CAA

Those CAA statistics were published here some time back in argument

So really what you are saying is that for a long time AOC ops have viewed private operations as a threat pinching their business?

That was more prevelant years back but not the case nowadays and the recent oversight and regulations are pulling us closer to AOC operations operationally

That is a good thing but please tell me what running dual licences one set which have no validity on FAA aircraft will do for safety ?

Unless you feel an EASA ATP is safer than an FAA ATP ?

That does not stand up to statistical scrutiny either

So this is all about misplaced AOC protectionism and all private jets should be run through an AOC so the AOC operators can make money operating the private jets ???

But all this was discussed 8 years ago since we knew about it. These regulations were put into place in 2011 and have been postponed every year since and now again to 2017 and you don't think there is a problem with the regs ? Which have failed to gain a final stamp of approval by the commission every year for 6 years? So we will have to see how this pans out and deal with it one way or another when things become clearer which at present are far from clear hence the rudderless recent mess

There is a big problem and so there should be

My Postings are of a slightly colourful style some is for effect :E

JM there is nothing on your profile are you a pilot or involved in operations or just don't want to put anything about yourself ?

Pace

[Beaver100]

Journey Man, I am not being overly grandiose, it is just a fact that our country is in a mess. Your attitude is one which I come across most days, ie "just accept everything and don't question it"

I don't understand the rest of your post but if its regarding AOC vs Private then don't get me started. Otherwise I'll have to start quoting stuff like umbrella AOC's lack of oversight and not knowing who is actually operating the aircraft. So probably best you don't go there

[Pace]

One thing which has not been discussed but which would lead to a solution to protect working pilots on N reg in the EU and don't forget under EU law these people have rights to their employment and income should anyone decide to challenge the regulation is a certain Grandfather right move by EASA.

It would be simple for EASA to issue these working established pilots with RESTRICTED ATPs. Restricted to private operations and not public transport
a simple Air Law exam pass and flight test.

That would be a simple solution and a sensible solution should EASA and the commission wish to continue with this ridiculous dual license fiasco but what about EASA is ever simple or sensible ?

Pace

[Above The Clouds]

Answer this question,

As an EASA or then JAR CPL or ATPL licence holder can you go to the USA and domicile yourself with a foreign registered (read European register) and fly/work in the USA getting paid for your services ? regardless of private or commercial operations, you are paid as a pilot.

I think you know the answer, that is what I believe is the one of the main reasons for the EASA proposals to protect the working rights of the European pilots, the same reason why you cannot do the above scenario.

[Pace]

Answer this question,

As an EASA or then JAR CPL or ATPL licence holder can you go to the USA and domicile yourself with a foreign registered (read European register) and fly/work in the USA getting paid for your services ? regardless of private or commercial operations, you are paid as a pilot.

I think you know the answer, that is what I believe is the one of the main reasons for the EASA proposals to protect the working rights of the European pilots, the same reason why you cannot do the above scenario.

Yes quite happy to answer that for you ;) That has nothing to do with aviation laws or the FAA but USA Immigration and working restrictions which effect any ability to work in the USA in any occupation not just aviation

there is nothing to stop you keeping a EASA registered aircraft in the USA but I cannot imagine why many would want to do that

That was not the case in Europe N registered aircraft have been prolific for decades and remember another BIG difference Europe is a mix of separate countries with separate governments.

The USA is the united states of America with one government.

There are many in the EU who would love the EU to be THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE with a central government but thank God we are not there yet

N reg and other 3rd country reg were accepted legal practice for longer than the EU has been in existence so legally accepted practice historically

Being legally accepted practice it was quite legitimate for pilots to set up business and to work within the EU
You cannot just with the flick of a pen say forget 40 years accepted practice we don't want to play ball with you anymore your out of a job without holding some responsibility to those people and ensuring they are accommodated in a reasonable way?

What would be classified as reasonable? taking six months off to do a full time course with NO job on your return ?
Cost? what would be classified as reasonable cost for a pilot to attain those dual licenses? Remember the pilots have done nothing illegal and have ran legitimate and legal business and so cannot be penalised in an unreasonable way

At least under existing EU laws and human right laws

The two situations are not comparable

Pace

[Above The Clouds]

Pace
That has nothing to do with aviation laws or the FAA but USA Immigration and working restrictions
there is nothing to stop you keeping a EASA registered aircraft in the USA but I cannot imagine why many would want to do that


With all due respect I think you might find there is a limit of 6 months for a privately operated aircraft, PA28 or bizjet then the aircraft has to be re-registered to an N reg if you wish to keep it longterm in the USA.
You will find that an AOC operated aircraft can fly to the USA with pax but cannot pickup new pax in the USA to fly to another US destination, private or commercial, the FAA/US government are protecting their own system and citizens.

[Pace]

You will find that an AOC operated aircraft can fly to the USA with pax but cannot pickup new pax in the USA to fly to another US destination, private or commercial, the FAA/US government are protecting their own system and citizens.

Private Jets fly to the USA land and pick up other PAX to fly to another USA destination for business or pleasure every day of the week.

Again you are talking Public transport ))

Pace

[Beaver100]

Apples and Oranges again Above The Clouds. What you mention has been done to death on other threads. There are of course third country private aircraft permanently based in the USA as quoted by others living there

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Ask the IOM how many M reg aircraft are now based in USA.....startling number actually and, Pace is bang on....immigration stop FAA pilots from other parts of the World from working and being domiciled there. I personally, missed out narrowly on a Falcon gig in Cali' because the company couldn't demonstrate that they needed to bring a pilot in from Europe to fill a seat.....gutted....would have been good gig whilst it lasted.

I love this "Tit for Tat" kind of exchange re licensing. It always comes down to "I had to do the 14 exams (or more)....its not fair that maybe an FAA pilot could get a licence and NOT do them...."!! Leave that kind of thing in the playground....we are, nearly all of us, grown ups! Again, I agree with Pace (sorry, but he's preaching what I have said for years)....issue a Restricted ATP, based on an FAA licence (thats current etc) and get the pilots to sit Air Law....and happy days! I don't want to fly for an AOC....or any kind of air carrier. You can keep that, thanks. What makes anyone think that because they have an EASA licence and are a European, that they have more right to my job than I do....as an FAA licence holder (just as hard to obtain from a practical viewpoint....and a practical, relative based exam for an ATP and initial IR issue)??? Riddle me this.....if I get a Part FCL....which one am I flying on? Both? Do I take off in France on my Part FCL and land in Teterboro on my FAA?? Or vice versa? At which point in flight am I swapping??? Just simply, a load of crap!

ATC....are you serious....the EU are trying to protect the rights of EU citizens with their interference in the third country licensing "thing"????? What a joke....! It's just more :mad: from yet another European group, interfering to try and justify the expense they make the EU incur......Brexit? Damned straight!!!!!

This shouldnt even be a debate. Pilots should be focussing on real World, important matters....that may affect the industry for better or worse. Making pilots change licences for absolutely no safety gain, or ANY gain....is an absolutely disgusting carry on!!

[Above The Clouds]

TN8B
Ask the IOM how many M reg aircraft are now based in USA.....startling number actually

I think if you look closely in to their operation they are not "based" in the USA but operate to/from staying in the US for long periods, their actual official base will be elsewhere, what they have do is leave the country for a very short period even a day to show on customs paperwork this also happens in Europe and Russia, I know as I fly an M reg.


TN8B
ATC....are you serious....the EU are trying to protect the rights of EU citizens with their interference in the third country licensing "thing"????? What a joke....! It's just more from yet another European group, interfering to try and justify the expense they make the EU incur......Brexit? Damned straight!!!!!

No, it was just my thoughts/reasoning why they maybe doing such a thing. I for one will be at the front of the queue when voting to leave Europe starts and mine will also be Brexit.

You all seem to be using the argument that someone is suggesting the holder of an FAA ATP is less safe than the holder of an EASA ATPL, who in authority has stated this ?

[Pace]

I would like to ask any of those who support the EASA position on 3rd country FCL What they would have against a RESTRICTED ATP being issued on completing the AIR LAW exam to protect pilots working on PRIVATE N reg Jets in the EU.

Most like the post above do not want a back door entry to work AOC Public transport and a Restricted ATP would be a win win all around wouldn't it?

I don't want to fly public transport and am not at a stage in my career where its worth taking that route. Maybe if I was forty!!! so why do I need to achieve licenses which I don't want or need for Private jets only.

Should those who Held a Restricted ATP decided they want AOC Public transport then they complete the remaining requirements to upgrade to a full ATP

We do have a right to carry on with our work and income from flying N reg in Europe a Historical and previously legal occupation and this move would seem sensible all around and would fall into the category of "reasonable" in the EU courts of human rights which I am informed the present requirements would not should someone have the money to challenge

ATC we can go around and around arguing every little point the facts are the United States of America with their own government have tight immigration laws which as stated are not specific to Aviation

Europe is not comparable! We are not the United States of Europe with one Government but a mix of independent countries.
The Big difference is we are talking about the working rights of EU citizens not Americans wanting to work here. The fact that there are 8000 FAA pilots who are EU citizens has been allowed to develop to something called established practice so the authorities have a moral and legal obligation to make any transition to a change as easy and cost effective as possible for those pilots commercial or private. Its not the pilots fault so why should they pay financially and in their time and loss of work for the whims of others ?

Pace

[this is my username]

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights ..... :cool:

[BillieBob]

You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flightsThat is true - but, under EASA, you do need to have passed the ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations to obtain a type rating on a multi-pilot aircraft.

[Pace]

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights

I fly as a Captain on a multi crew jet and hold the licenses and current type rating to do so it just happens to be FAA Hence the suggestion of a restricted ATP so that any conversion is not seen as a back door EASA ATP. there would have to be a certain amount of Grandfathering rights in achieving this but it would be easy for EASA to do

Pace

[Beaver100]

The endgame should be to get the whole of this mess of legislation permanently shelved. I don't want or need an EASA licence restricted or otherwise. It has no relevance to me or plenty of others on a daily basis.

[Journey Man]

The endgame should be to get the whole of this mess of legislation permanently shelved. I don't want or need an EASA licence restricted or otherwise. It has no relevance to me or plenty of others on a daily basis.

I wholeheartedly agree. Operators registered outside of Europe should be relieved of this entire mess, and then usual time limits should apply to how long they are based in Europe without needing to import the aircraft. For European registered operators, the aircraft should be transferred to a European registry. Solves the whole issue.

[Pace]

Beaver

Hopefully that will be the case! But as in aviation always have a plan B or even C
There is a plan B if anyone is interested but will fill you in not quite just yet :ok:

Pace

[this is my username]

I fly as a Captain on a multi crew jet and hold the licenses and current type rating to do so it just happens to be FAA Hence the suggestion of a restricted ATP so that any conversion is not seen as a back door EASA ATP. there would have to be a certain amount of Grandfathering rights in achieving this but it would be easy for EASA to do

Pace, you missed my point - if the rules come in to play and you are required to have an EASA licence what you would need is to be transferred / grandfathered on to a "restricted CPL" not a "restricted ATP".

I'm just commenting on what is required in terms of licencing and what might be politically easier to achieve rather than on the rights and wrongs of the situation. You don't need an ATPL or an ATP for the type of flying you do so why suggest that it is the solution rather than a CPL?

[Beaver100]

Thanks for the information Pace, would be interested to hear plan B

[Hawker 800]

An off the shelf non EU company that you are director of?

[Pace]

An off the shelf non EU company that you are director of?

NO ;) Much more diplomatic and the right way first

Pace

[DirtyProp]

Go straight to Easa and tell them to pull their heads out of their @@@, banging on the table...?

[Pace]

Go straight to Easa and tell them to pull their heads out of their @@@, banging on the table...?

EASA are a waste of time they do not approve regulations only write them so NO ;)

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Oh....here we go....registry prejudice again! Why stop foreign registry's from operating in EU/limit their time here ATC??? "My jet" is operated from outside the EU. The owners core business is actually in Russia, but HE lives in London....pays all his local taxes etc (and big chunks too on his UK companies) and simply did, with ownership, what most Bizjet owners do and, effectively kept the ownership offshore to save the tax liability. Nothing to do with registry....how many owners of EASA registered jets are paying the VAT and not claiming it back....or not paying tax at all....or operating them as "available to charter" and claiming all kinds of costs back and yet, NOT actually doing any charter (cleverly pricing them out of the market for example?).

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Brilliant idea DirtyProp....sign me up!

[Journey Man]

Oh....here we go....registry prejudice again! Why stop foreign registry's from operating in EU/limit their time here ATC???

Regulatory oversight?

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Pace, you missed my point - if the rules come in to play and you are required to have an EASA licence what you would need is to be transferred / grandfathered on to a "restricted CPL" not a "restricted ATP".

I'm just commenting on what is required in terms of licencing and what might be politically easier to achieve rather than on the rights and wrongs of the situation. You don't need an ATPL or an ATP for the type of flying you do so why suggest that it is the solution rather than a CPL?
Because then you would need to add a restricted IR to the restricted CPL wouldn't you and, also, to be a pilot in command (on the validation at least), they require not only an ATP from the ICAO nation....but ALSO, they want you to have 1500 hours multi crew and 500 hours on type (lmfao.....re the validation, because if you had done the EASA licence, that requirement doesn't exist??? One rule for one....etc etc)

[Triple Nickel 8 Ball]

Hmmmm .... isn't the colloquial name for a "restricted ATP" which allows private work but not acting as a captain on multi-crew PT flights a "CPL"? You don't need an ATP/ATPL for private flights ..... :cool:
.....you could also argue then, that if it was your own private jet, a multi PPL/IR would do...?

We are talking private business with the pilots being paid to fly it. NOT a Commercial Op

[Journey Man]

TN8B

Aviation is a regulated industry. This is the part of aviation that entrepreneurs and UHNWIs, like many of our clients (whether we're CAT or Private), forget and struggle to grasp.

Incidentally, I've gone through a type conversion meeting those requirements (500/1500), and it was shambolic. I do understand the frustrations vented here. If there was a clear path forward, regardless of the path, then that would be something.

[Pace]

TN8B

This is an extract from a CAA letter to me which explains and rectifies an error re the 1500 hrs you mention. That is only for a Public transport validation see below


“The table is explicit for ATPL conversions where the holder has more than 1500 hours in multi-pilot aeroplanes may be granted a validation for multi-pilot operations in commercial operations. It also says that an ATPL holder with more than 700 hours may be granted PPL privileges. These requirements are the same as those that previously applied under JAR-FCL and we continue to interpret them as we did prior to 2012. The CAA view is that as the ATPL(A) includes the privileges of the CPL(A), the validation terms for CPL holders as specified in the table are also available to ATPL holders and will result in a validation with the privileges that would be granted to a CPL holder.”

This is not correct. What Annex III to the Aircrew Regulation actually says is that the holder of an ATPL(A) with more than 700 hours may be granted a validation that allows:
“Exercise of privileges in aeroplanes in operations other than Commercial Air Transport”

So such a validation would include ATPL(A) privileges - including being remunerated to act as flight crew - but only for flights that are not Commercial Air Transport (as defined in EU regulations).

I apologise for this error and the confusion it has caused.

Yours below

Because then you would need to add a restricted IR to the restricted CPL wouldn't you and, also, to be a pilot in command (on the validation at least), they require not only an ATP from the ICAO nation....but ALSO, they want you to have 1500 hours multi crew and 500 hours on type (lmfao.....re the validation, because if you had done the EASA licence, that requirement doesn't exist??? One rule for one....etc etc)

And as posted by U and M

The validation involves proving you have an FAA ticket, demonstrating 1500 hours of multi crew time, a Class 1 EASA Medical being issued and also, an LST, on the type you want to fly if you want it added to your validation. I meet all this criteria, but have to do the LST (still planned for today unless I see a doc confirming the delay until 2017 from the CAA), which is valid for 6 months and would add my current type to my licence.

Just to get this clear re validations 1500 hrs multi crew only applies to validations for Public transport

[CJ2driver]

For the past eight years I've been flying G550-Nreg and a 737BBJ- P4reg out of Czech rep. With the new EASA plan to dismiss me, validation of my FAA ATPL license seems like a good idea to gain time to sit the freaking 14 exams, should I decide to go that route. Yet, the Czech CAA will only validate my FAA license to fly aircraft registered in the Czech rep! OK reg! How is that suppose to work? How valid is that validation if at all? And again, I can't get a strait answer from any authority, as of when I'll be flying illegally.

[leonard17F]

All,
Thanks a lot for a very informative thread....
But it is a LOT of info to digest...

So... in order to understand my own case :
Flying a Part 23 Biz Jet on a VP-xx ticket based on a FAA ATPL License, in a European country.
Private operation, NOT Charter (Part 91, NOT Part 135, in FAA language...)

I also have an EASA CPL-IR, MCC, but I have not sat the dreaded 14 exams... hence I do NOT have a TR on the EASA licence.

What will happen ? When ? What can I do to continue flying ? (Do I need to sit the 14 exams or just part of them ?) Does the answer depend upon the number of flight hours I have on type (or total) ? Would the answer also differ if it was N-reg or M-reg ?

Thanks a million !

Leo.

[Pace]

Hi the answer is we don't know yet what is going on rumour has it that there has been a big legal challenge against the EASA regs by believe it or not the french and the chaos that has caused has meant the month delay in formalising the april 2017 extension.

EASA promised a BASA for both FAA PPL stuff and then would move onto FAA Commercial stuff.

There are 8000 FAA Pilots based in the EU so its EASAs priority to make a transition pain free. My guess is the vast majority are PPLs

What I am not sure of is the number of non EASA rated pilots flying commercial in the EU a much smaller and maybe insignificant number so maybe the motivation to sort something for us in a transition isn't great

The french shout when they don't like something and usually get it fixed us lot we also have a case but will slip through the net uncomplaining and unnoticed if EASA have their way
Again will keep you posted soon on a possible move for us which I don't want to mention if its a dead end ;)


Pace

[Beaver100]

Pace, that sounds good (your PM inbox is full)

[spacecadet]

I was made aware several years ago that there was going to be a change of licensing regulations in Europe, so I completed my EASA studies and earned my EASA ATPL.

Many colleagues also did this too.

I sympathise with everyone who is concerned for their career, but this has been on the cards for a long time. I understand both sides of the argument but to me, European job = EASA licence, Worldwide job = FAA licence.

When I spoke to the UK CAA, they said the regulation change will come into effect sooner or later.

[Pace]

Spacecadet

I fully understand your position and why you did the EASA ATPL exams I can also understand the EU and elements within the EU regretting the huge numbers of mainly FAA aircraft which have developed over 40 years legally within the EU.
Who is at fault the pilots and aircraft owners or the regulators over all those years.

As stated EASA had a clean sheet could have saved the EU a pack of money by incorporating the FAA tried and tested as well as universally accepted system and adjusted that for EU specific needs
Instead they chose to create their own regulations doing exactly what forced so many towards FAA in the first place.

Aviation knows no boundaries and the world is a shrinking place which will mean that in the future it will become more important for pilots to work in one or other country or even another continent.

Safety is about standardisation less scope for mistakes and I see EASA as a huge missed opportunity to reduce costs and really support aviation world wide

The market place rules only a stick works in communism or dictatorships and had the EU put something equally attractive and cost effective in place the problem would have died naturally.

Nevertheless we have EU laws on rights to work and discrimination laws and not everyone can trundle off to a full time school for six months and have a job at the end of it or because of family commitments don't suit 1 to 2 years distance learning. That is not even looking at the costs of getting and maintaining those licenses for 2 registers

the EU have a moral obligation to those people to make sure they can continue working till retirement age.
If I was 40 I would do the same as you with maybe 27 years flying ahead, plenty of earning time to draw back the large costs of achieving and maintaining dual licenses with an option to work public transport in Europe

But in my case I don't have that time

Others are happy flying private aircraft and do not want to fly public transport

Grandfather righting was always an accepted practice to protect pilots from legislation damage which through no fault of their own would severely damage their livelihoods and occupation

I see NO reason why EASA and the commission could not meet their moral human right obligations by issuing these pilots with restricted ATPLs ? restricted to NON public transport with at most a pass in Air Law. That would save any back door entry to an EASA unrestricted ATP and would help a lot to a steady transition over time without damaging the pilots Pilots caught up in this

Pace

[Underrated and Moderated]

"Riddle me this.....if I get a Part FCL....which one am I flying on? Both? Do I take off in France on my Part FCL and land in Teterboro on my FAA?? Or vice versa? At which point in flight am I swapping???"

TN8B posted this and i didn't see any reply yet.....so I will have a punt....

You take off in France using your British Television licence (as it's an EASA state( and land in Teterboro on your "Fishing licence". The point at which you swap licences will be your ETP over the Atlantic I think, or it may have to be the exact Lat/Long equal distance point in the NAT's.....I'm not sure?!! :ugh:

It's a good point. You can't fly on TWO licences....so why make people hold two that don't need them? This is where so many people on here are getting their knickers in a twist. Don't offer a back door to an FAA ATP holder, that will allow that holder to fly for easyJet or NetJets or whoever, by getting a validation.....but by the same token, don't then also say that their licence cant be used to fly private ops, simply because the operation is EU based. It makes no sense. The Status Quo would remain if they just issued a restricted ATP (or whatever ticket that person needs to hold, to carry on doing what they are doing now) with the restriction being that their Third Country Licence has to be valid (medical s in place etc) in order for the ATP (Restricted) to be valid!! Easy! That way, if you want to do an EASA ATP (full), or do an EASA one and an FAA one to open up more jobs....hell, even an Aussie one, a Canadian one and a blinking Russian one, they can do.....the only limits would be where the HOLDER decides to set them....not EASA, with ZERO JUSTIFICATION!!!!!! :D

I think, somebody also mentioned, the M reg based in the USA regulation and that those aircraft have to leave at some point, even for a day, so that they are not U.S based. That's exactly how it is for the N/VP/A6/P4 etc etc in Europe, unless they want to pay the local VAT/Taxes etc.....which MANY light aircraft do pay (because its a ball ache flying out of the EU due time and distance etc....puddle jumpers struggle with that) but, most foreign reg' aircraft don't....because escaping the EU is easy and done regularly....which is why these people own the sodding things in the first place!! I know of several EU operators now that specifically own N registered, in the EU, so that their frequent visits to the U.S, don't have the added complexity of having to pre-notify the TSA/Immigration lot about every place they intend on visiting and who is on board etc, which you have to do if you're M reg or EU reg. So, these guys fly on their N reg licences and I know of two that have let their EASA licences lapse because they don't need to use them.

[Pace]

Just to clear up the point of which license do you start and end the flight with ? It's one! the FAA license
Your EASA license has NO legal bearing on an FAA aircraft other than itself an excemption
This is purely a legal stipulation concocted to say our licenses are harder to get, more expensive but not better
For that reason if we make you get our licenses too their is no benefit to getting your licenses in the first place
If we force you to get our licenses we don't have to compete in the market by offering something better or more attractive than the FAA system and what's more we can give more of your cash to training organisations to get licenses that hold no validity on your aircraft and that you have no practical need for

Pace

Pace

[Underrated and Moderated]

Old thread..... What the hell is going on now?! I had a "battle" with the CAA earlier this year....

I am now, unemployed...jobless (not really because of the reg's changed...more from the ex CP being a complete pile of chicken sh**...long and unbelievable story)....anyway....I cant get another job in the EU, because I only have an FAA ticket. I have looked everywhere...unless an aircraft is OPERATED outside the EU/UK/EASA States....then the FAA ticket is useless.

It feels like EASA killed my career!

SO.....who do I sue? Seriously though....what do I do beyond the 14 exams (have started, but fitting in the study around family life (8 year old and 2 year old) and a wife who has this year, been diagnosed and is being treated for cancer, is fu**ing difficult

[Klimax]

U A M,

I'm not an expert, but I don't think your correct with regards to "..unless an aircraft is OPERATED outside the EU..". I believe the requirement is that the OPERATOR is based outside the EU/EASA countries. In other words; a N reg, or any other non-EASA reg, aircraft can be operated on the respective states (in your case the FAA ticket) national license within the EU, provided that the operators head office/domicile is NOT in the EU. Again, I'm not an expert, but you may want to try and have this confirmed and perhaps what you are looking for, to get a job within the EU (on your FAA ticket), but with an operator that does not have it's domicile in the EU. Hope this helps somewhat.

[Underrated and Moderated]

[QUOTE=Klimax;9885547]U A M,

I'm not an expert, but I don't think your correct with regards to "..unless an aircraft is OPERATED outside the EU..".

Hey Pal....Yes ...you are EXACTLY correct....:ok: .....however, I worded my post poorly. The Operator has to be outside of the EU....for example, my last "Employer" is based in Luton...maintained in EGHH and OPERATED, from Guernsey (well, Stansted, but they have paperwork trail, phone number and email going via Guernsey)....!

This is, obviously, utter tripe and of course, as illustrated above, is a joke, as the OPERATOR in this case, is very clearly, really, physically, based in the UK. It's like meeting the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, pulling levers when you go to their office and phone the "Guernsey based" dispatcher/planner...and all the green screen, fake backdrop magic falls away..!! Thats great....but if it's such an obvious loophole, why even bother with it? Why not just issue an FAA ATP holder, with a validation, for a specific aircraft, as long as his licence, 61.58, insurance blah blah is all current for the type, just the same as the IOM do?? This way, people like me (professional, 4000+ hour pilot with 4 jet types and multiple thousands of hours as PIC on them), keep their jobs and can find others if one private op goes down the swan....and the weekend warriors in their N reg King Airs, have to get themselves up to a higher level (with approved courses being attended etc). It's clearly not Public Transport and Private Jet Ops has a better (proven/fact) safety record than AOC companies anyway (I am lead to believe....I can probably find the fact somewhere). It makes no sense.

Lets face it....the likes of GAMA, TAG, JET et al are just after stamping out the little man and adding more aircraft to their managed fleet.....and, by utilising the loophole, the Fred in a Shed Operators, can continue to "Get around" the regs. Can "Get around" improving their fatigue management, their SMS and their SOP's.....its :mad: useless. I'm currently :mad:

[Underrated and Moderated]

Just wanted to bump this thread up....as some of the old names that were commenting and making a worthwhile contribution, have failed to comment or give their latest findings and I wondered if there was any new news. There are so many unanswered questions and I would like to try to establish if anyone has made any progress??

[ahwalk01]

As a Brit with FAA licenses, I am stuck between volunteering my pilot/instructor time in the UK/EU (cannot earn without EASA licenses) and the same in the US (visa requirement).

I have focused on ground school and there is a small niche in defence where the civilian regulator does not exist. It gets to me that EASA schools can operate in the US with non-qualified (only validated) personnel, and the reverse is not allowed.

[Underrated and Moderated]

Yes....Instructing is another biased area. I have and have been, looking into the possibility of CFI/CFII....as there is a market for FAA training still (for the private owners), however, it's expensive and needs dedicated time. Are you (^^) a CFII?? If so, I may be able to put you in touch with an organisation that can give you some work...though, you still have the problem of being paid for your services!!

Everyone else seems rather quiet on here....I wonder if they are keeping their heads down on what has otherwise been, a thread with a lot of worthwhile contribution in the past

[asdf1234]

[QUOTE=Klimax;9885547]U A M,

I'm not an expert, but I don't think your correct with regards to "..unless an aircraft is OPERATED outside the EU..".

Hey Pal....Yes ...you are EXACTLY correct....:ok: .....however, I worded my post poorly. The Operator has to be outside of the EU....for example, my last "Employer" is based in Luton...maintained in EGHH and OPERATED, from Guernsey (well, Stansted, but they have paperwork trail, phone number and email going via Guernsey)....!

This is, obviously, utter tripe and of course, as illustrated above, is a joke, as the OPERATOR in this case, is very clearly, really, physically, based in the UK. It's like meeting the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, pulling levers when you go to their office and phone the "Guernsey based" dispatcher/planner...and all the green screen, fake backdrop magic falls away..!! Thats great....but if it's such an obvious loophole, why even bother with it? Why not just issue an FAA ATP holder, with a validation, for a specific aircraft, as long as his licence, 61.58, insurance blah blah is all current for the type, just the same as the IOM do?? This way, people like me (professional, 4000+ hour pilot with 4 jet types and multiple thousands of hours as PIC on them), keep their jobs and can find others if one private op goes down the swan....and the weekend warriors in their N reg King Airs, have to get themselves up to a higher level (with approved courses being attended etc). It's clearly not Public Transport and Private Jet Ops has a better (proven/fact) safety record than AOC companies anyway (I am lead to believe....I can probably find the fact somewhere). It makes no sense.

Lets face it....the likes of GAMA, TAG, JET et al are just after stamping out the little man and adding more aircraft to their managed fleet.....and, by utilising the loophole, the Fred in a Shed Operators, can continue to "Get around" the regs. Can "Get around" improving their fatigue management, their SMS and their SOP's.....its :mad: useless. I'm currently :mad:

If the aircraft is based inside EASA land then the operation is governed by EASA. Here is extract from the rules:

GM1 ORO.GEN.105 Competent authority
NON-COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
(a) For the determination of the principal place of business ‘activities referred to in this Part’ means
those activities to which Part-ORO, Part-NCC or Part-SPO apply. For organisations that also
exercise activities that are not subject to Part-ORO, Part-NCC or Part-SPO, the determination of
the principal place of business should consider that part of the organisation that is responsible
for the operation of aircraft subject to Part-ORO, Part-NCC or Part-SPO. For non-commercial
operations, this is usually the home base of the aircraft concerned, or the location of the flight
department.

[CL300]

Some of my customers on part NCC have been audited.
When I advised them I played safe with the authorities.

If the aircraft was permanently in Europe EASA Land, Part NCC applies, full stop.
Then : If the owner flies as Single Pilot --> N Licence is enough ( "safety pilot" is not paid anyway)
IF the owner flies with a "Captain" or a "Crew" whom is(are) paid for the job this pilot(s) has to have both licences.(EASA + FAA)

In part NCC, you have to maintain the list of the pilots that are allowed to fly, as well as their training records.

So far, in both cases, the findings were not on this issue.

For the one interested, one of the finding was that a copy of the manual was not physically at the "home base" of the aircraft, and one training certificate was not updated ( even though the pilot had performed the said training), in the relevant part of the manual.
The other main one was the record keeping for a customer whom did not want an integrated solution ( and stick with paper), some flights were missing as well as W&B records for over flights.
As you can see, these were not great issues and have been corrected easily.

[ahwalk01]

Yes....Instructing is another biased area. I have and have been, looking into the possibility of CFI/CFII....as there is a market for FAA training still (for the private owners), however, it's expensive and needs dedicated time. Are you (^^) a CFII?? If so, I may be able to put you in touch with an organisation that can give you some work...though, you still have the problem of being paid for your services!!

Everyone else seems rather quiet on here....I wonder if they are keeping their heads down on what has otherwise been, a thread with a lot of worthwhile contribution in the past

PM Sent...

[Underrated and Moderated]

CL300 "If the aircraft was permanently in Europe EASA Land, Part NCC applies, full stop."..... Again, I am no expert, but I believe that the aircraft location has little impact. It doesn't say that in the regulations does it?? My understanding is that it's to do with where the aircraft is OPERATED from. My example above details this....I can name two Falcons (a 900LX and 1x2000) that are permanently based in the UK, plus multiple CJ's. One has an owner/pilot and employs another guy to fly alongside him and is operated on the N reg, officially, from NJ.....the other is a pi** taker so far as these reg's are concerned and employs full time crew (two of which have EASA licences...but the self proclaimed CP has just FAA licence). These aircraft have permanent hangarage/parking in the UK and the 900 certainly has all Mx carried out in the UK, has all crew living in the UK, has an owner that lives in the UK as a UK resident (though of course, like anyone with serious money, is able to hide the ownership of the aircraft through multiple companies, offshore) and is OPERATED from the UK, but by a company that has a "PO Box" or similar and a phone number, thats in Guernsey. This makes an utter farce of the reg's and Part NCC...! I can add a phone number, right now, to my mobile, thats a Mexican number if I want to, or Australian, or Brazilian.or anywhere in the World.....but I would be answering it in Berkshire!!!

"Then : If the owner flies as Single Pilot --> N Licence is enough ( "safety pilot" is not paid anyway)." Again, I am not convinced this is the case for a Jet or type that is listed as requiring a TR....?? I know one CJ4 owner who is a UK resident, has an FAA ticket, that flies with another FAA ticket holder, in an aircraft based in ***K and is owned, by a company, owned by the owner, that is in the IOM! So again, either they are doing it illegally, or they are legal and are covered and outside of Part NCC.

"IF the owner flies with a "Captain" or a "Crew" whom is(are) paid for the job this pilot(s) has to have both licences.(EASA + FAA)." Really?? See above....! There are owners who don't know the front of an aircraft from the back, that just sit in and be flown, that are employing people to manage and fly their aircraft, in the UK, that do not have EASA licences.... simples.

We know it's bureaucracy at its finest. We know it hasn't done anything for safety. We know that it hasn't helped many EASA pilots get jobs (as they also need FAA tickets if a plane is N reg) and it hasn't even managed to stopped the little worms (in some cases, not all), who operate aircraft off the back of fag packets, from the sheds in their gardens (sorry..."Garden Office"). What it has done, is completely :mad: people like me up, who have made a living from flying aircraft on N reg for years and years and, BEFORE I get the obligatory "...go and get your EASA exams done mate(y)...", I am in that process...however, with a very ill wife, 2 kids and a small business to run, that I need just to (nearly) stop myself from having my house repossessed and to keep food on the table, it is VERY difficult. Not to mention, that now my Multi Crew Type has expired, EASA want me to do 15 hours of flight training in a twin, to show I can fly a plane (4 type ratings and 4000 hours doesn't prove that anymore).

I'm just frustrated.....and gutted....and EASA do not show any signs of being sensible about it. If they were, then they would issue validations, like the IOM do, so that previously experienced, TR holders, could continue to work and those starting afresh, from scratch, on the back of Bank of Mum and Dad, would have to start from scratch. It's not rocket science and IS sensible and logical.

[CL300]

U&M

I am not discussing who is right or wrong, I just give my experience as a supplier/advisor for Part NCC operators and the two audits and the results.

As far as "operation" is concerned, one of the audited customer (pilot owner single pilot) has the operating part, ( company, address, secretary etc.) in Luxembourg, but the plane flies from France and is hangared there. After a meeting with both authorities, France was the one that had to approve the manuals and deliver the certificate.

[ahwalk01]

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88965

[CL300]

This is only for certification not operation ;-) But it is very good for OSD..

[Underrated and Moderated]

What CL300 says.....!

The thing is....they recognise one another certification....you can have American Examiners issuing EASA initial types in jets, at an ATO etc....but they wont recognise licensing...it's all :mad: and its ran/administered and dreamt up by useless :mad:'s

[ahwalk01]

Glad I'm in Orlando working on seaplanes. Hoping to get some progress soon on licensing.

Alex.

[Underrated and Moderated]

Glad I'm in Orlando working on seaplanes. Hoping to get some progress soon on licensing.

Alex.

If I could get a permit to live/work in the USA.....I'd have moved there 10 years ago!!!!!! How did you manage it?

Cheers

U and M

[ahwalk01]

No only doing a rating, heading home shortly. Whereabouts is your contact who needs an FAA CFII? :)

Alex

[MungoP]

Underrated and Moderated
If I could get a permit to live/work in the USA.....I'd have moved there 10 years ago!!!!!! How did you manage it?

Be careful what you wish for.. I used to think the same until it happened, however a few years over there taught me that life is a lot tougher.. Bosses wield a big stick knowing that if you lose your job your health insurance goes out of the window (tough if you have a family), little or nothing by way of unemployment benefits, most companies (including the very big ones) offer a 10 day holiday per annum for the first 5, 6, or even 7 years..Many fewer public holidays than you're accustomed to in Europe and at the slightest hiccup in their turnover you can be out of the door so fast you'll be a mile down the road before the echo of 'sorry' dies away.

[CL300]

[B]

you can be out of the door so fast you'll be a mile down the road before the echo of 'sorry' dies away.

Try Austrian operators... the word "sorry" is not even pronounced