Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

Should EASA be allowed to monopolise licencing in Europe?

Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

Should EASA be allowed to monopolise licencing in Europe?

Old 10th Apr 2012, 10:36
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
because N-reg operation is that much cheaper,
Get real.

Obviously you have never owned and maintained an aircraft

There is little difference in scheduled maintenance, for Part 91, and everything above that is AOC anyway.
peterh337 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 10:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nuname, when was the last time you had to justify the cost of putting an N-reg on the JAR registry to an owner, when he could have just as easily left it on the N-reg and saved himself a bundle? When was the last time you had to explain that a certain STC/mod was not allowed purely because of the letters on the tail? When was the last time you had to justify time limited components or an inspection interval on a particular aircraft purely because it was JAR registered?

Peter, I have personally owned several N-reg and JAR registered aircraft, and have been directly involved in the ownership of others on both registries and know very well the differences in operational costs.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 11:03
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: I can see it from here.
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cldrvr, more times than I care to remember, in fact I am involved in it as we speak. But, these are choices, choices that certain people wish to see removed. I am sure you have extensive experience in aviation but do not, because of that, assume that no one else has. If an owner decides to put an aircraft on a European register then that is their choice and I am sure they have good reasons for doing so and fully understand the problems and costs associated with doing it. You are a great advocate of EASA it seems, and you have that priviledge without a doubt, but, to state that its unfair for others to take advantage of a perfectly legal situation to operate a private aircraft more efficiently is sour grapes. And to state that you feel you are being laughed at because an aircraft departs when you are unable surely refers to a private operation versus an AOC operation. That situation would occur regardless of the registration/pilot licence, including G reg with JAR pilots.
NuName is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 12:35
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cldrvr your bottom feeding continues......

So, how will they enforce this ? Perhaps I'll just pretend I didn't hear of any of this when the time comes in 2014. I mean, I don't exactly read the 1000 page drivel written by the overpaid worthless idiots in Brussels. I will expect my FAA Certs to be transferred at no cost to an EASA one. If not, there will be an extremely large lawsuit for loss of earnings being filed. I will of course win, and will retire and get out of the cesspool of Europe.
Thomascl605 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good luck Thomas taking on the EU:
Non-privileged’ applicants, who may include individual employees, employers and trade unions, can directly complain to the European Court of Justice about acts of the EU institutions, but only under certain conditions: ‘Any natural or legal person may directly complain against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former’ (Article 263 TFEU). Although seemingly very wide, the ECJ has interpreted this provision very strictly. In the leading case of Plaumann & Co. v. Commission, Case 25/62, [1963] ECR 95, the ECJ allowed for individuals to complain about EU decisions directly to the ECJ only ‘… if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.’
Specifically, the ECJ has refused to accept that collective organisations representing their members qualify as individually and directly concerned. For example, the ECJ refused to hear two cases where French works councils complained against decisions of the Commission allowing mergers between French companies to proceed (Comité Central d’Entreprise de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources v. Commission, Case T-96/92 [1995]; Vittel v. Commission, Case T-12/93 [1995]), and again in a case where a works council complained about a Commission decision condemning state aid to an industry (Comité d’entreprise de la Société Française de Production v. Commission, Case T-189/97 [1998]).
The result is that it is very difficult for complaints to be made by individuals against actions of the EU institutions, even where these affect employment and industrial relations.
Plenty have tried, none have succeeded. The EU is as the UK, it is called "Parliamentary Supremacy":

At the heart of the meaning of ‘Parliamentary Supremacy’ is that Parliament has ultimate law making authority. There is no other body within the UK that can legislate contrary to or go against and challenge laws of the UK Parliament. There is no higher source of law than that which Westminster Parliament enacts.
Classic authority for this principle can be seen in cases such as Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway v Wauchope (1842) 8 CL&F 710, Pickin v British Railways Board [1974] AC 765, R v Jordan [1967] Crim LR 483 and Jackson v AG [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262, where challenges to Acts of Parliament on both procedural and substantive grounds failed. The courts have not entertained any assertions that they have the power to decide not to apply an Act of Parliament for any reason. The courts have said they can do nothing other than apply an Act of Parliament, regardless of what it says or how it was enacted (as long as it is an Act of Parliament).
Two minutes on Google would have stopped you ranting and raving and instead focused on how to obtain a JAR/EASA license instead.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:23
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Malta
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey Guys,

What's the fight about

First of all what type of operations are we talking about? Private or under AOC ? What do you meant under "Based" (It's not always the place where the a/c is parked most of the time)?

For me personally it's very easy:
1. If the aircraft is privately operated the pilot should be compliant with regulation of the state of the registry.
2. If the aircraft is operated commercialy (under AOC) the pilot should be compliant with the regulation of the state of issuance of AOC.

and it has nothing to do with where the aircraft is "based" .

Correct me if i'm wrong
DEIN is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are missing the point of the proposed regulation Dein, if you are a "EU based" operator, your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses. They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft, but the days of a FAA certified pilot in the EU and US registered aircraft in the EU are numbered.
cldrvr is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:30
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft
Who is fine tuning this and do you have any reference for that?

All we have is EASA FCL, as the law is written.
peterh337 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:58
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Malta
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft" - that will take long it's extremely difficult to determine the "base". there are planty of operators having their corporate jets "based" in 4-5 different locations, so what's the base for this operator ?

Re regulation for European operators (AOC holders) "your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses" - It's been like that for quite a while , one can get validation of his/her FAA license from local NAA (only once) for a period of 12 month, if i remember properly. after you have to get your JAR/EASA license.
DEIN is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 13:59
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the horses' mouth:

The new Implementing Rules implementing the requirements set out in Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 in the field of pilot licensing were published as Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew in the Official Journal of the European Union on 25 November 2011.
As stated in this Regulation, the application date is 8 April 2012, though flexibility is introduced via transition measures contained in Article 12 of this Regulation.
Even though Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 has extended EU competence to flight crew licensing (FCL), until Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 on Aircrew becomes applicable, Member States’ national rules remain in force.
Third country operators

Sorry, under construction
cldrvr is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 14:06
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re regulation for European operators (AOC holders) "your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses" - It's been like that for quite a while , one can get validation of his/her FAA license from local NAA (only once) for a period of 12 month, if i remember properly. after you have to get your JAR/EASA license.
Yes; most countries, including some EU ones, would validate an ICAO CPL/IR or ATPL to their local pilot papes, if you have a relationship with a commercial operator on their registry. This is normal.

It is private (e.g. FAA Part 91) ops which this is aimed at.

Like I said earlier, while this has been cooking for a few years (and yes the bizjet community has had its head buried in the sand... witness many threads here) what has caught everybody out is that most EU countries have not applied for the 2 year derogation.

It seems clear that EASA used the 2 year derogation, with their usual vague promise of a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA, as the under-the-table carrots to get enough MEP support for the crucial vote some months ago.

But EASA left the derogation on a per-country optional basis. Perhaps this was a clever ruse, knowing that most of the national CAAs have nobody there with the will to live long enough to read the EASA FCL tomes, let alone understand them. Or perhaps everybody underestimated the apathy at all levels around Europe, towards the EU and the crap coming out of Brussels.
peterh337 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 14:13
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This had been coming for years. What I don't understand is how people are shocked that it's happened. I gave always said that the pen pushers would pay lip service to protest and then do exactly as they pleased.

People have buried there head in the sand pure and simple.

I don't agree that it's correct but it was inevitable.
S-Works is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 14:16
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, how will they enforce this ?
ever here of ramp checks? I know the FAA enjoy doing those.....

Perhaps I'll just pretend I didn't hear of any of this when the time comes in 2014. I mean, I don't exactly read the 1000 page drivel written by the overpaid worthless idiots in Brussels.
ignorance is no excuse, no matter what business you're in.

I will expect my FAA Certs to be transferred at no cost to an EASA one. If not, there will be an extremely large lawsuit for loss of earnings being filed. I will of course win, and will retire and get out of the cesspool of Europe.
WestWind1950 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 14:46
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Third country operators

Sorry, under construction
Those are explanatory notes, which with some googling (because you didn't bother to post links) can be found here.

But these are just EASA explanatory notes. There is no legal interpretation, and anyway EASA does not make law. They have to put everything before the EU parliament, and that have just finished with FCL.

So the current unworkable "operator residence" etc wording is here to stay - much as you wish otherwise
peterh337 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 15:32
  #35 (permalink)  
Fly Conventional Gear
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Over the years we business/corporate operators have been inundated with regulation/rules that never applied to N-reg operators, putting us at a disadvantage. Proper operators don't mind rules and regulations if they are administered fairly across our industry, this ruling will make our industry a better place to operate in.
I highly doubt it will. All this will do is drive up the overall cost of aircraft ownership and operation, how on earth can that be a good thing?

The problem with all this EASA stuff as has been discussed over on Private Flying is that they have never really looked at why the whole question of N-reg ever became an issue at all. People saw it as a way to escape regulation because that regulation was costly and unnecessary. All this garbage about FTOs, Maintenance organisations etc that has been piled on the industry over the years drove people to keeping aircraft on the N-reg. EASA's approach from the outset was to just force everyone into the same straight jacket rather than addressing issues with EU regulations. Instead of demanding that everyone be held to the same ridiculous standards people should be looking at those standards in the first place.

As people quite rightly pointed out getting FAA licences was often done simply because they were needed to fly all these N-reg aircraft floating around in Europe. I've never understood this issue of people who did JAA licences holding a grudge against people who operate FAA; just because you have spent money on something that was ridiculously more expensive than an alternative does not mean that everyone should be forced to do the same. I hold both JAA and FAA multi-IRs and my view is that the whole JAR IR/ATPL thing should be rationalised so that it is cheaper and more accessible.

None of this local regulations stuff would matter if EASA were reasonable about the regulation of private/business flying, particularly the issue of foreign licence conversion. People are only up in arms about it because of the costs/hassle involved.

Ultimately yes EASA should be allowed to set standards for permanently based operators in the EU but they sure as hell could be making life easier for people in the transition.
Contacttower is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 16:45
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK, mainly
Age: 39
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
which will cost me about £200/year to renew (IR renewal annually and a PPL renewal 2-yearly).
Not quite - your SEP revalidation (assume this is what you mean by PPL renewal) will be absolutely free, assuming you fly 12 hours in the second year of validity. Can't help so easily on the IRR sadly...
madlandrover is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 17:37
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do you mean the IR renewal acts as a PPL renewal also? It ought to, for the price
peterh337 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 20:00
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dear Westwind,

You said about ramp checks and ignorance, lol ! You really haven't got a clue have you ? Same as Cldvr our domiciled pro EASA super bottom feeder who actually reads the endless tripe out of the bowels of Brussels.

Ok, let's have a ramp check then when this rubbish comes online in 2014. The law of precedent has been set for the previous god knows how many years of working in Europe absolutely fine on FAA Certs. The reason please for this change ? The CAA haven't written to me to tell me, 2014 is the first i'll know of it. it'll have to be damn good to make me shell out thousands on a pointless and time consuming conversion to fly the same aircraft.

No, this isn't acceptable to me at all. This is one law too many out of Brussels. I'll happily take on EASA over this, happy to chuck in a few grand at least in 2014 to have my say and fight for what is right and fair.

Now let's see, around two million in lost earnings over the rest of my working life, better get writing that cheque EASA.
Thomascl605 is offline  
Old 10th Apr 2012, 20:39
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: someplace between FAF & MAPt
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Grrr

cldrvr, you seen to have a massive chip on your shoulder pal, for why I just don't know...

I would actually love to step up to bat and throw my concerns into the ring but i'm keeping very busy on an FSI course for one of the jets I'm extremely lucky to fly (on my FAA ticket) for a living.

To the FAA guys I'm in a similar position to... Good Luck!
moonym20 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2012, 07:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@cldrvr I don't know which planet you are living on but it's clearly different to mine........
I haven't found an EU based maintenance operator that is not dual qualified - their rates are exactly the same whatever the letters on your tail.
The import thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the letters on your tail and everything to do with the home base of the aircraft. Banning N reg aircraft will not make a shred of difference to that.
Far from being good for aviation, this can only be bad. Many owners use aircraft for their ease and convenience.....make them less easy and conveient and their utility comes into question. Every owner who decides that they can't be arsed or doesn't want to waste money for no good reason means jobs lost - pilots, engineers, sales etc.etc.etc. They won't all go to charter and may even remove themselves from the EU altogether - with even more loss of jobs/income.
This is not a war of ideals, it is business and the EU has proved, comprehensively and repeatedly, that it doesn't care if people make a living or not, or if they live or die in an aircraft. Their job should be safety, not points scoring, and encouraging business so that somebody's taxes pay their salaries. Other places are more welcoming and will be standing by to mop up the gravy from that famous train.
flyingfemme is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.