N Reg Ops EU domiciled pilots

[cessnapete]

Are the above affected pilots all grounded next week, if EASA lic not held. Has EASA dictat not been delayed another year?

[this is my username]

Nope.

Lots of talk about it being extended, but no action.

[Pace]

The regulations have been there since 2011 EASA write regulations the Commision validate and make those laws
Member states then approve
The Commission voted to extend a further year it is then for member states to enact that decision!
It is strange that nothing has been said since the commission vote
Will try to find out more tomorrow

Pace

[Jetblu]

Is this of any help.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjx9sjWifbLAhXHCw8KHd7SCwEQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicapps.caa.co.uk%2Fmodalapplication.asp x%3Fappid%3D11%26mode%3Ddetail%26id%3D7251&usg=AFQjCNHNXfaEWIT5zBfrH7EWpYfvFI_9iw&sig2=c8rUc6EgoVhNVoesmzySbA&bvm=bv.118443451,d.ZWU

[Beaver100]

Regulation has been extended to 8 April 2017. Euro Parliament approved

[Fly4Business]

Does anybody have a list of the EASA countries following the opt to do another year? Is it the same not following already, or did some join the this is the end crowd? I hate to check each countries regs ...

[this is my username]

From JetBlu's link:

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.

So at the time of writing the change was still an aspiration, not a done deal. Once the change is through then the individual CAAs need to implement it if they so wish. AFAIK the UK CAA have not yet issued an extension to the 8th September 2016 deadline.

[Pace]

The extension was voted through by the commission that cannot be changed anymore than a vote in parliament

Pace

[Fly4Business]

Even though the Third Country opt-out extension was voted for by the commission does not mean it is immediate law in all subsequent countries. Given the current publication, it looks as if it follows last years "optional" process and has to be enrolled to by the countries willing to opt-out.

According to the list published by AOPA, even last years prolongation was already not enacted by Estonia, Italy, Croatia, Latvia, Lithunia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slowenia, Czeck Republic, Hungary and Cyprus. Strictly speaking, authorities in these countries may follow formal belief N-regs can only be flown by EU domiciled pilots if they hold an EASA license and that, since April 2015. It appears that nobody controlled it, yet, but it may only be a matter of time.

What happens if - say, Ramp Check: (1) N-reg flown by a FAA-PPLonly Italian (no opt-out) in Austria (opt-out)? Maybe the Austrian authorities don't care, but the other way around: (2) N-reg flown by a FAA-PPLonly Austrian (opt-out) in Italy (no opt-out)? Is it legal or not? I heard rumors pilots do cross borders, don't you think?

I do find that procedure pretty much confusing and the EU papers won't help much. There even is the possibility some countries did not enact opt-out, because they thought they don't have to - who the hack knows? Or even worse, they have some strange paragraph enacting automatically - how should a pilot know, if this is hidden somewhere on page x-thousend and written only in i.e. Estonian local language? If in doubt assume the negative, is not a good way to deal with things like that, or?

Isn't it time to declare EU a state for aviation purposes?

[Pace]

What the commission pass is EU law so I am not sure where a country not opting out stands legally as its based on EASA regulations enacted or otherwise by the Commission so I am not surprised that so many were lax last year yet we had no trouble flying into or out of those countries

Pace

[this is my username]

Has the commission passed the law? I'm not saying it hasn't, but I've not seen it (not that I have looked very hard).

The good folks at EASA don't seem to think so:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/faq/20075

[Fly4Business]

As the EU is not a state, there is no "EU law", there is regulations and directives *pennypickingOUT*. The rules how the regulations and directives feed into each countries law systems are partly set on contract/treaty, as a secondary law, level, are quite complex and many times even the actors are not sure what they built. The law systems are indeed quite different in the EU. In the end it is still the authority of a country to enact or not a setting from EU and many times they deny. How many treaty violation proceedings are discussed in the EU? I recently heard that Germany alone has something like 80 proceedings similar to "EU court hearings" for violations.

And no, as far as I know the opt-out 2016 is not published yet.

[ch.ess]

As the EU is not a state, there is no "EU law", there is regulations and directives *pennypickingOUT*. The rules how the regulations and directives feed into each countries law systems are partly set on contract/treaty, as a secondary law, level, are quite complex and many times even the actors are not sure what they built. The law systems are indeed quite different in the EU. In the end it is still the authority of a country to enact or not a setting from EU and many times they deny. How many treaty violation proceedings are discussed in the EU? I recently heard that Germany alone has something like 80 proceedings similar to "EU court hearings" for violations.

And no, as far as I know the opt-out 2016 is not published yet.
Sorry, but that is not correct, there is plenty of EU law directly applicable...

EUR-Lex - l14547 - EN - EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al14547)

EC Law - directly applicable and the doctrine of direct effect (http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod2/2_3_2_eu_sources/08_doctrine_of_direct_effect.htm)

And, yes, the extension has been adopted:
Texts adopted - Wednesday, 9 March 2016 - Non-objection to an implementing measure: pilot training, testing and periodic checking for performance-based navigation - P8_TA-PROV(2016)0074 (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P8-TA-2016-0074&language=EN&ring=B8-2016-0287)

So - have fun for at least another year
:-)

[Pace]

Ok don't worry about it as nothing will happen until April 2017 The BASA and EASA regulations on third country licenses are linked and a legal minefield one cannot happen without the other. By 2017 it is likely that an agreement will be made with the FAA which is a needed process. I should get more clarification by Friday but your not breaking any laws flying after April 8

A lot of what I have been told lost me as it is highly complex but I don't think EASA the Commission or the member states are clear themselves, hopefully by Friday I may get more

Pace

[Fly4Business]

EU "law" is very complicated and even if regulations may be originally thought of "directly applicable", reality often proves this to be wrong or ignored by certain, but not always the same, EU countries.

I still don't get why the EASA system does not issue EASA-piggyback-validations to FAA license holder, the same as backwards - inner-EASA cross approval of validations shouldn't be a problem, or?

We now have two threads in parallel, the OP started another one here (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/577138-easa-lic-n-reg-pilots-domiciled-eu.html). Maybe the admin can merge them?

Copied from the other thread:
The actual list of countries and their willingness to enact opt-out 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" (explanation for active enact opt-out inside the file).

[Pace]

the directive: the directive is an act addressed to EU countries and must be transposed by them into their national laws. However, in certain cases the Court of Justice recognises the direct effect of directives in order to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore, the Court laid down in its case-law that a directive has direct effect when its provisions are unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise and when the EU country has not transposed the directive by the deadline (Judgement of 4 December 1974, Van Duyn). However, it can only have direct vertical effect; EU countries are obliged to implement directives but directives may not be cited by an EU country against an individual (Judgement of 5 April 1979, Ratti);

It might suit the Commission to point to PPL and not Commercial and let that slip away as again there are legal problems which a wealthy guy deciding to challenge the regs is likely to win

Pace

[ch.ess]

You are quoting some language on DIRECTIVES, the issue at hand is covered in a REGULATION. Different regime, different rules.
;)

Sorry - countries can only actively opt-out. Like in the examples provided in the link (pretty limited as far as we see)

Unless that happened explicitly, the regulations can be referred to directly in/by national courts and, if applied inappropriately, the issues can be challenged in the European Court.

[cessnapete]

AOPA confirm that implementation delayed to 4/17.

[Pace]

I think the whole third country license thing is crazy
2011 the regs were in place and delayed every year now till 2017! This indicates that they have major problems with the regulations!
My guess without an agreement with mainly the USA they cannot legally do it but the delays certainly are not because of consideration to us pilots

Pace

[Jonzarno]

I agree!

These stupid regulations are supposed to be justified on safety grounds. I wonder if anyone in EASA can tell me how many accidents / fatalities have resulted from pilots with an FAA IR not having converted to an EASA IR? If it's OK to keep postponing the introduction, then the status quo must be providing an adequate level of safety?

While they are at it, I'd be interested to know how many VFR pilots have had VMC into IMC accidents because of the difficulty in getting and maintaining an IR.

Surely it would be simpler and more effective if they just agreed to mutual recognition of licences and, at the same time, adopted the FAA IR syllabus, currency and test requirements. That would clear away the administrative mess they have created, enhance flight safety and save the administration and the pilots a bundle of money as well as a lot of wasted time.

[Jetblu]

Hear, hear Jonzarno.

So much sense spoken in just a few paragraphs.

[Above The Clouds]

Jonzarno
Surely it would be simpler and more effective if they just agreed to mutual recognition of licences and, at the same time, adopted the FAA IR syllabus, currency and test requirements. That would clear away the administrative mess they have created, enhance flight safety and save the administration and the pilots a bundle of money as well as a lot of wasted time.

Your paragraph above is a contradiction, the CAA and EASA do not understand the words.
Simpler
Effective
Enhance flight safety
Save administration
Save money
Wasted time

[Jonzarno]

I hang my head in shame. :(

Please accept my apology for having yielded to the siren song of logic and optimism: I won't let it happen again. :oh:

[Pace]

Jonzarno

It all comes back to self interest. EASA were originally almost disbanded by the Commission for trying to reinvent the wheel.

These are again government job creation with huge benefits to those employed in EASA.
Great pension allowances and expenses allowances and salaries. Who pays for it all?

Re Writing the rule books suited EASA not aviation or the economy of the EU
The simple and practical idea of taking the biggest regulatory system used world wide didn't suit EASAs self interest

Aviation has no boundaries its a world wide occupation with thousand of jets flying into and from Europe worldwide every day so it makes every sense that a common regulatory system is used world wide from a practical sense and a safety sense so we are all trained and fly to roughly the same regulations and no confusion.

In the future it will also be more important for free movement of pilots to work with as least hassle and cost between countries and continents.

There is no sense to EASA or its existence in the size and form it is other than self interest.

To create spiteful regulations requiring dual licensing and licensing which requires expensive and time consuming licenses to be held which hold no validity on the aircraft being flown is pure madness and a complete NON SENSE

But the above is a good reflection of the bureaucracy well known in the EU and all thats wrong with the EU which is made up of numerous self interest pressure groups

Pace

[Fly4Business]

I do not see the EASA as bad per se, definitely not. Especially since Patrick Ky is steering, I do see a lot of good things happening and I honor a lot of respect to the really challenging setup. In the end, there are quite a number of rather idiotic systems to combine into one system and there is progress, slowly, but it finally moves.

Ok, it is not sufficient for the more global minded, and pilots are per education much more geoflexible compared to the rest of the crowd, but there are a lot of ground based obstacles to identify, circumnavigate und to be bombed as well.

I even do see some logics in the political efforts to get a more forceful weapon against their own people, but I do not support the thinking behind. I also believe they will not succeed in creating a working regulation the way they do it now, because I strongly believe we need a global system, not another local minded one. First step for inside EU is not that bad and much better then before, but there is at least some common base inside EU.

Btw: dual licensing is only necessary for the "wrongly" domiciled pilots, so one movement to seriously consider is moving your home to the country of your license. If you frequently fly a N-reg aircraft and do hold a FAA PPL, why not move completely to the US and pay your taxes there? If more pilots would plan and do this, guess how fast regs will change ...

[Pace]

Btw: dual licensing is only necessary for the "wrongly" domiciled pilots, so one movement to seriously consider is moving your home to the country of your license. If you frequently fly a N-reg aircraft and do hold a FAA PPL, why not move completely to the US and pay your taxes there? If more pilots would plan and do this, guess how fast regs will change ..

But that reflects the very argument! Why are there so many N reg private aircraft flown by PPLs in Europe.
Simply cost and time to achieve licenses for working people who may have family or heavy work commitments.
It has been shown that the N reg pilots with IRs are safer than those trying to fly VFR in minimal conditions
So again its the market place argument
Had EASA offered a practical cost effective PPL IR in the first place there would not be so many N reg in Europe
This is a failing in the European system not the pilots who moved to N reg which was perfectly legal for them to do.
Why should they have to meet the huge costs in time and money for something they are innocent of ?

Pace

[Fly4Business]

For a real global view, the concept of "domiciled" can be questioned at all! We did vote for a system we are not stopping to do that crap. We did let our politicians built walls and fences. We did let local political systems grow beyond fears. We did let them take the individual freedom to move. We did let them fight each other to justify their existence. We did allow the cancerous political systems to evolve from sole administration to take over all of our life. Who is innocent?

[Pace]

Fly4business

This is going off topic somewhat but I am a prolific poster in the Jet Blast forum on the EU vote as a Brexit supporter.

I am pro a European Union but totally against a European centralised government and a move towards that as being good for the UK.

i cannot see any area in EU government which has been anything but a disaster area the policy on ex EU immigration an example of a problem the EU have created which will cost us heavily for decades to come.

That is one example but I find it hard to point to anything which the EU has determined which has lead me to believe that further integration and power to Brussels can be beneficial to the UK.

Hence I will vote Out not to leave the EU but to pull control back from an out of control EU to our elected parliament.

We each under a democracy have a vote but in relation to EASA even if every pilot voted one way it would have made no difference to the outcomes of national votes as will be my rantings in the EU topics in the Jet Blast forum.

N reg in Europe has been around longer that the Common Market and longer than the EU or EASA has been in existence. Many PPLs motivated to N reg as did Jet owners and operated perfectly legally for decades.

Some Commercial pilots went the FAA way because the majority of private jets were N or third country registered in the EU and have built business serving that section of the market.

Without huge allowances being made to those pilots to keep operating many will loose their incomes and livelihoods

We cannot say to our employers sorry not available for 6 months as we do a full time course to study and complete 14 exams or dig into our pockets to finance that and the expensive flight side requirements
its bad enough paying for recurrence which have escalated to nearly $10,000 all in to keep current and get back through employment and endure further financial loading on top just to keep EASA happy

My rants in the Jet blast forum will not make a scrap of difference to the outcome of a misworded vote and the same with all PPLs their votes will not make a scrap of difference on where things go with EASA

We have been taken up the garden path for 6 years since these stupid regulation s were put into place and deferred every year since by the Commission. It getting beyond a joke and unfair to the pilots who don't know where they are or how to plan for the future and itself may have created human right issues in the EU courts
Even April 8 has come and gone with no directives WHAT A SHAMBOLIC LOT THEY ARE

Pace

[Jonzarno]

Pace

I agree with you about a single regulatory framework and body to oversee it.

What we need to come up with is something that is International in scope, covers Civil Aviation and is Organised.

All we need is a catchy acronym for it ...... :8 :p

[BEagle]

Please note http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0539&from=EN :

(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.’

[Pace]

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.’

Beagle

Non commercial means not public transport AOC work it doesn't mean being paid to fly a private aircraft that was CAA clarified and ok with a commercial license

[BEagle]

This is the Private Flying forum, isn't it?

Hence my post referred to private operation of N-reg aircraft, rather than flag-of-convenience commercial operation.

EU OK!!

[Pace]

Beagle I take your point but its Ok for a wealthy CJ1 private single pilot to post here but if he pays another pilot to fly it for him thats not OK.
If It was an N reg single Saratoga would that be more acceptable ?

We have two threads running one in this forum the other in the Biz jet forum and both covering much the same subject with both overlapping

If its flag of convenience then I ask why is a European reg a flag of inconvenience ?

Apologies for the thread drift

Pace

[Fly4Business]

Just a remark to the term "private", which is hurting discussions on General Aviation in Europe for a long time. Movement statistics is usually based on the registration of the aircraft, not the purpose of the flight. I hope EASA will introduce a mechanism to at least estimate the percentage of business flights sometimes. Until then, all business related flights are not counted as such, but be put in the public bucket of rich dad boys fun flights.

[Pace]

all business related flights are not counted as such, but be put in the public bucket of rich dad boys fun flights.

I know the one owner of a business jet I fly treats it as a needed work tool. He goes to many obscure locations which would take him a lot of time and changes to reach by the airlines. Never asks for catering but brings his own packed sandwiches and we often leave at 0200 and never later than 0630 to make meetings and a full days work.

Not for him a status symbol but a needed work tool plain and simple.

While there is also the Rich kids using Dads Money I have never seen that other than the closest with a motor racing team where again it was needed transport but with the status and extra touches appreciated

Most of the Rich kids probably just rent an AOC aircraft for that weekend skiing

Pace

[Flying Tooth Driller]

Well, the CAA have done their best:

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2016036.pdf

[Mike Echo]

I’ve got to wonder how the average third country operator is supposed to pick up on CAA notices unless they actively monitor them? I've got a RSS feed from the CAA but it didn't pick this up and send it.
M.E.

[Pace]

This is an EU administrative blunder and the CAA has no choice but to add this temporary extension I only hope the others have followed suit until the permanent extension is in place as there will be flights merrily flying over Europe today/tomorrow unaware.

The CAA always do their best and hats off to them as they can only deal with what they have but to put the CAA and pilots in this situation is really not good enough As another poster said how on earth are pilots meant to find out all this stuff.

If an aircraft unknowingly landed in a EU country which was lax in applying the same as the CAA what would the insurance situation be? An aircraft bursting a tyre on landing and having an accident? Would insurance still be valid I don't know the answer?
I could see a strong case for pilots or operators caught up in this EU mess suing the authorities for any losses incurred

The exemptions outlined at 2.1 and 2.2 above are restricted to UK airspace. Individuals and operators are responsible for ensuring that, if a flight will enter non-UK airspace, the competent authority for that airspace has enacted provisions which ensure that the flight will be legal. The Exemption is published as part of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Official Record Series 4, “UK Licence Validation Requirements for Holders of ICAO Annex 1 Flight Crew Licences”, dated 8 April 2016.

[Beaver100]

But I don't see any difference from the previous year's extensions, and it hasn't caused any problems with flights. You are probably right though they do need suing. If you knew the background of the people creating this mess in the commission I think you would find it interesting, ie non aviation personnel currently a team of 5

[Pace]

Beaver

I agree in the past extensions some countries never enacted the extensions mainly through ignorance and incompetency and it was business as usual
But a major accident with a large insurance claim may have the insurance companies looking for a way out.
As the EASA Licenses hold no validity on an FAA aircraft and subject to all the licensing being correct on the FAA aircraft I cannot see that it would be any more than a technical infringement and not an insurance issue but I don't know :E I am far from an insurance expert
Maybe these threads are cross wiring and this should be in the Biz Jet forum?

Pace

[bookworm]

But I don't see any difference from the previous year's extensions, and it hasn't caused any problems with flights.

In the previous years it was a derogation. This is a temporary extension, hence the UK airspace limitation. A derogation will follow, without the limitation.

[Cathar]

My understanding is that the derogations have always been specific to the territory of the Member State making the derogation. This is confirmed in recital 5 of Regulation 2016/539:

"(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........"

[bookworm]

It's a good catch but I don't find it illuminating either way. It says "territory", not airspace, and could simply mean "established or residing in their territory". The more typically assumed interpretation is that the derogation applies in that way. There's no question that CAT operators whose states applied the derogation had no issues flying in those that didn't.

[Pace]

The chaos that has caused the CAA 1 month extension of the extension to 2017 has I have been told through a reliable source been caused by a powerful legal challenge to the regs by a large group in France. the French always get what they want not like us Brits who roll on our backs and comply with all. Its to do with flight schools being compromised by the regs in France

[Fly4Business]

It is not only flight schools, also the fight on the commercial SET(IFR) battleground and various others thy try to trade ...

[Flying Tooth Driller]

CAA confirmed derogation till April 2017 in a notice yesterday. See you then for the next episode?

[piperboy84]

Sorted !! Fire up the N reg'r

[Jonzarno]

There is a certain delicious irony in seeing this piece of bureaucratic idiocy being thwarted by the bureaucratic incompetence of the very bureaucrats who are trying to impose it.

Given that it is allegedly in the name of safety: I wonder how many N Reg aircraft flown by FAA Licensed pilots have plummeted into puppy farms because the pilot hadn't converted their licence since the first of these derogations happened?

[Sam Rutherford]

You'll know when the regulations change, because mid-flight you'll suddenly be unable to fly. Obviously...

[Above The Clouds]

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

[Hawker 800]

Apparently not. At my most recent seminar at the Belgrano, this was a subject of much talk. It would appear that nothing much would change, if any.

[Pace]

Hawker800

without doubt on a brexit the UK would incorporate EASA Regs but the portion on third country would not legally fit

i presume it would be up to the CAA to rewrite that portion to fit but equally not sure by incorporating EASA bespoke re writing of sections would be legal anyway

EASA would have to amend the regs to include plus the UK

That is not as straight forward as it appears either

[The Ancient Geek]

No problem - you can be a member of EASA without bing in the EU.

[swbok]

No problem - you can be a member of EASA without bing in the EU.

Indeed many EASA members are not Member States of the EU.

Hopefully the FAA will keep EASA going round in circles for many years to come!
EASA should leave N reg ac alone.

[Katamarino]

The whole concept of having different licences for different countries is a nonsense. A single ICAO licence that's valid worldwide, on all registrations of aircraft, is the only sensible answer.

[Jetblu]

That would just be too easy, as it would do away with all the bureaucracy and red tape.