More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!
If implemented the non EU States of Registry will have Operators who are being forced to comply with a quite unintelligible EASA (non ICAO) ruling based on Operator location, which will likely leave themselves wide open still to the very real threat of insurers not paying out in the event of accident or incident. Adopting such a ridiculous ruling from outside the State of Aircraft Registry will lead to more safety violations due to having to comply with two different sets of legislation. The question will be asked as to who is the real state of oversight ? A legal minefield and one that any insurer will surely use to it's advantage.
Now with compliance becoming a much more complex issue maybe they are banking on operators getting scared of the insurance non-payout consequences of a prang and run into the arms of EASA full registration.
Never assume these office boys and girls are just bureaucrats. They are wily & shrewd.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private jet
This had nothing to do with safety but the whim of certain pressure groups with self interest and powerful individuals with influence on EASA determined to curb the use of N reg in Europe which they had attempted and failed for decades
it is a belligerent nonsense to find a legal way of stopping N reg operations in Europe which had failed many times previously I could even be a fly on the wall and seeing orders given to their legal department to find a way dual licences being the way they came up with.
It will only be stopped when someone with enough money challenges it in the EU courts. the commission have already delayed it because of legal implications and nothing has changed.Saddling working pilots with huge costs both financially and in time! to retain their rightful work for no practical or sensible reason is a nonsense. What happens to those pilots who have worked for decades in Europe legitimately and have only a few years left in their careers? how do they justify those costs and hassle for such a short period of time left other than being forced to be deprived of their livelihoods early?
there are existing laws in the EU giving rights to a livelihood and age discrimination laws to protect people from such abuse of power.
But of course EASA were working tirelessly towards a BI lateral agreement? More likely in the bars and restaurants with their expensive expense accounts
Surely the other claim about requiring oversight should be covered in part NCC? So why bother with the rest removing pilots right to work and saddling them with huge costs as individuals part NCC should suffice?Some sort of operating procedures and oversight of those procedures makes sense the dual licensing does not and I hope part NCC is a saving face way out for EASA
i for one hope the British public vote us out of the EU that would cause some major legal problems with this nonsense and frankly that is what it is NON SENSE
Pace
This had nothing to do with safety but the whim of certain pressure groups with self interest and powerful individuals with influence on EASA determined to curb the use of N reg in Europe which they had attempted and failed for decades
it is a belligerent nonsense to find a legal way of stopping N reg operations in Europe which had failed many times previously I could even be a fly on the wall and seeing orders given to their legal department to find a way dual licences being the way they came up with.
It will only be stopped when someone with enough money challenges it in the EU courts. the commission have already delayed it because of legal implications and nothing has changed.Saddling working pilots with huge costs both financially and in time! to retain their rightful work for no practical or sensible reason is a nonsense. What happens to those pilots who have worked for decades in Europe legitimately and have only a few years left in their careers? how do they justify those costs and hassle for such a short period of time left other than being forced to be deprived of their livelihoods early?
there are existing laws in the EU giving rights to a livelihood and age discrimination laws to protect people from such abuse of power.
But of course EASA were working tirelessly towards a BI lateral agreement?
More likely in the bars and restaurants with their expensive expense accounts Surely the other claim about requiring oversight should be covered in part NCC? So why bother with the rest removing pilots right to work and saddling them with huge costs as individuals part NCC should suffice?Some sort of operating procedures and oversight of those procedures makes sense the dual licensing does not and I hope part NCC is a saving face way out for EASA
i for one hope the British public vote us out of the EU that would cause some major legal problems with this nonsense and frankly that is what it is NON SENSE
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 17th Oct 2015 at 12:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Journey man
You have it right on the nail ) like any market people will go for the best deal if what EASA offered was so attractive designed to streamline costs in an efficient cost effective way then there would be no N reg in Europe instead there is a mass of N reg
The market dictates EASA don't want that market so regulate the competition out !
We have a strange comparison in London and Black Cabs! Uber moved in with what is a very efficient system and are taking the market! A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.
EASA had the opportunity to take the FAA system and make it better but chose this chaotic regulatory way
Pace
You have it right on the nail ) like any market people will go for the best deal if what EASA offered was so attractive designed to streamline costs in an efficient cost effective way then there would be no N reg in Europe instead there is a mass of N reg
The market dictates EASA don't want that market so regulate the competition out !
We have a strange comparison in London and Black Cabs! Uber moved in with what is a very efficient system and are taking the market! A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.
EASA had the opportunity to take the FAA system and make it better but chose this chaotic regulatory way
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I also say that EASA had a blank sheet! Aviation is worldwide and there was a fantastic opportunity here to really bring the worldwide regulations much closer together which in turn would have lead to true and easy BI lateral agreements but no EASA wanted to re write the rule books to isolate themselves
What a missed opportunity and for what ? The mess they have put in place ?
Pace
What a missed opportunity and for what ? The mess they have put in place ?
Pace
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.
) with a bunch of guys who have no idea, dont speak any known language, some of whom are not insured and have a tendency not to pay taxes... So in your world let's get pay to fly pilots fly our aircraft and let them fight over lowering their salaries, no need for them to learn anything like line training as they have a CPL so that is enough, SMS systems out of the window as price is important.
I rather have an authority that is trying to create a level playing field by getting rid of all the "flagging out" mom and pop operations which are as good as they guy or gal running the place and in a race to the bottom in terms, quality and standards!
Now I know you guys are all smarter than Chuck Yeager with an MBA but the rules are made with for the other SOB's that bend the rules, think they are smarter than they are, think that they operate safer than they are in mind. So get of your high horse and give them proper feedback instead of this Daily Mail like nonsense.
Rant over and locking the cockpit door
Global_Global, please.
I dunno in your country, but in mine (Italy) a taxi driver is a guy who simply bought a fancy piece of paper either from the gov'ment or someone else close to retiring (and paying an outrageous price for it).
Like me coming to you and offering you some money for your ATP, so I can work for the 'lines.
I dunno in your country, but in mine (Italy) a taxi driver is a guy who simply bought a fancy piece of paper either from the gov'ment or someone else close to retiring (and paying an outrageous price for it).
Like me coming to you and offering you some money for your ATP, so I can work for the 'lines.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing London Black Cabs and Uber is a bit like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Dhaihatsu. Might do the job most of the time but the devil is in the detail.
London Black Cab drivers have "the knowledge" so they know where they are going all the time. Their vehicles conform to a spec that allows access by the old, the disabled, those with buggies and bags. Most important, they have a safety history that is second to none. I can't ever recall a lone woman being in danger by taking a Black Cab. I would always take a Black Cab in London after dark.
EASA on the other hand.......can't actually think of a good word to say about them. Their "mission" to establish conformity across Europe has failed miserably and introduced yet more red tape and stupidity to an already complicated arena.
London Black Cab drivers have "the knowledge" so they know where they are going all the time. Their vehicles conform to a spec that allows access by the old, the disabled, those with buggies and bags. Most important, they have a safety history that is second to none. I can't ever recall a lone woman being in danger by taking a Black Cab. I would always take a Black Cab in London after dark.
EASA on the other hand.......can't actually think of a good word to say about them. Their "mission" to establish conformity across Europe has failed miserably and introduced yet more red tape and stupidity to an already complicated arena.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly Global Global I agree with your point about low hour jet FO's and pay to fly pilots. It shouldn't be allowed in Europe especially when they have just a couple of hundred hours total when let loose on heavy jets.
But I hate to break it to you it's been going on for many years though in EASA land, with the low cost airlines, pilots on zero hour contracts and paying for their type rating. Many are known to be on the breadline, and many examples of European Airlines can be given. All of these pilots have EASA licences and you only need to conduct a short forum search about how much pressure they feel they are under, and how much pressure more importantly the person in the left seat is under having to fly with them. I read that pretty much it's like flying as single crew for these Captains, tail strikes are common for example along with many other safety issues, these low hour wannabes simply don't have the correct experience levels. Their company SMS certainly doesn't help with their problems. The root cause being greed of the Airline in question and the young wannabe trying to sidestep the proper experience levels.
Going back to corporate the problems remain even with your gold plated SMS / Ops manual / EASA licence that you think solve all problems.
I don't believe that they do as they currently and consistently fail to provide any form of additional safety for these European based bargain basement cut costs to the knuckle AOC ops (there are many) or worse AOC umbrella ops that stick their crews in substandard hotels, constantly flaunt FTL's and either don't put their crews through sim (basic LPC) or ensure its the cheapest and shortest sim course available.
Private Ops generally have a better safety record than the above, the argument that an SMS / Ops manual will improve an already decent and better safety record from bargain basement AOC ops (which most are) these days is flawed. However, I am sure that the high total hours flight time experienced corporate pilots such as Pace etc will implement the SMS / Ops manual should the needless conversion to an EASA licence be completely shelved. But EASA cannot have both, as he rightly states the EU precedent of being allowed to fly in Europe on non EU licences was set years ago, the lawsuits will follow should this right to work cease.
But I hate to break it to you it's been going on for many years though in EASA land, with the low cost airlines, pilots on zero hour contracts and paying for their type rating. Many are known to be on the breadline, and many examples of European Airlines can be given. All of these pilots have EASA licences and you only need to conduct a short forum search about how much pressure they feel they are under, and how much pressure more importantly the person in the left seat is under having to fly with them. I read that pretty much it's like flying as single crew for these Captains, tail strikes are common for example along with many other safety issues, these low hour wannabes simply don't have the correct experience levels. Their company SMS certainly doesn't help with their problems. The root cause being greed of the Airline in question and the young wannabe trying to sidestep the proper experience levels.
Going back to corporate the problems remain even with your gold plated SMS / Ops manual / EASA licence that you think solve all problems.
I don't believe that they do as they currently and consistently fail to provide any form of additional safety for these European based bargain basement cut costs to the knuckle AOC ops (there are many) or worse AOC umbrella ops that stick their crews in substandard hotels, constantly flaunt FTL's and either don't put their crews through sim (basic LPC) or ensure its the cheapest and shortest sim course available.
Private Ops generally have a better safety record than the above, the argument that an SMS / Ops manual will improve an already decent and better safety record from bargain basement AOC ops (which most are) these days is flawed. However, I am sure that the high total hours flight time experienced corporate pilots such as Pace etc will implement the SMS / Ops manual should the needless conversion to an EASA licence be completely shelved. But EASA cannot have both, as he rightly states the EU precedent of being allowed to fly in Europe on non EU licences was set years ago, the lawsuits will follow should this right to work cease.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: london
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You live in a pleasant dreamworld. The point about Uber is that they can't avoid paying taxes because every transaction goes through a system which declares what the driver earns. I wonder how many black cab drivers declare their tips.
I think the point which Pace makes is that the European system is neither better nor safer than the non European system. Looking at the operation known as 24/7 or the organ flight to Birmingham or other recent G reg tragic incidents, I agree with him (for I know it is him) completely.
This is in reply to Global, Global but this daft site has positioned it elsewhere.
I think the point which Pace makes is that the European system is neither better nor safer than the non European system. Looking at the operation known as 24/7 or the organ flight to Birmingham or other recent G reg tragic incidents, I agree with him (for I know it is him) completely.
This is in reply to Global, Global but this daft site has positioned it elsewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is now a Uber versus black cab ? )) I can only go on my experience with Uber which to date is impressive! Clean modern cars with tidy and polite drivers compared to the bone shaker black cabs! No digging around for money and a scribbled out receipt instead an efficient E mail with the route and price! Details and photo of driver and car. Efficient complaint department and best of all at present around half the price! My guess that's to grab the market and then go up but time will tell! Yes you are right they don't have the knowledge and will slavishly follow the GPS ))
Back to EASA this has nothing to do with safety! The statistics don't match a need to close a danger hole with private jet operations in fact statistically private jets operated by professional crew have a better safety level than AOC op jets
I stress EASA had a clean sheet could have looked at things globally and taken the FAA system fine tuning it to suit Europe and maybe even bettered it saving the tax payer a fortune but instead their motivations were political and creative towards their own jobs not the furthering of the health of aviation
We now have this tangled expensive mess to deal with
Pace ( daily M ))))
Back to EASA this has nothing to do with safety! The statistics don't match a need to close a danger hole with private jet operations in fact statistically private jets operated by professional crew have a better safety level than AOC op jets
I stress EASA had a clean sheet could have looked at things globally and taken the FAA system fine tuning it to suit Europe and maybe even bettered it saving the tax payer a fortune but instead their motivations were political and creative towards their own jobs not the furthering of the health of aviation
We now have this tangled expensive mess to deal with
Pace ( daily M ))))
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: london
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between Black Cabs and Uber is....
Price: Uber good value. Black Cabs outrageously expensive
Knowledge: Black Cab drivers spent ages learning "The Knowledge" while Uber drivers rely on a GPS based system called Googlemaps which is more efficient and up to date.
I don't know what navigation system you use. Perhaps it is dead reckoning or NDB. However, most of us now use GPS based systems just as Uber do.
Believe me...it's the future.
Again, a reply for flyingfemme. Apologies that PRUNE doesn't put me in the right place.
Price: Uber good value. Black Cabs outrageously expensive
Knowledge: Black Cab drivers spent ages learning "The Knowledge" while Uber drivers rely on a GPS based system called Googlemaps which is more efficient and up to date.
I don't know what navigation system you use. Perhaps it is dead reckoning or NDB. However, most of us now use GPS based systems just as Uber do.
Believe me...it's the future.
Again, a reply for flyingfemme. Apologies that PRUNE doesn't put me in the right place.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of indignant frothing at EASA here that is completely missing the point: 90% of what they are doing is complying with the ICAO requirements.
As the Overseas Territories have already done. I assume all you people operating VP & VQ are complying with the OTARs? Or are you just ignoring them because the Bermudans and Caymans don't have enough inspectors to do much auditing? Or even have not read them, like one operation I came across recently that thought they only applied to AOCs.
The FAA are planning to implement it all as well, just under the US system it takes about 20 years for any rule changes to go through.
Interestingly, I understand that the FAA are quite supportive of it all, since apparently one of their biggest headaches is all the aircraft flying around outside North America with "N" painted on them that are not compliant. Until they changed the lifetime registration system a few years ago they reckoned that nearly 50% of them weren't even on the register!
And finally, for all those hysterically shouting "it's illegal", I suggest you learn some basic air law. The regulations of the country you are flying in always apply in addition to those of the country of registration. ICAO has no regulatory power, it is merely an agreement between countries to respect most of each other's licencing etc. But every single country is entitled to "file differences", and many do. In fact I think the UK has one of the highest numbers!
So while EASA has many faults, I think GlobalGlobal is on the right track here.
As the Overseas Territories have already done. I assume all you people operating VP & VQ are complying with the OTARs? Or are you just ignoring them because the Bermudans and Caymans don't have enough inspectors to do much auditing? Or even have not read them, like one operation I came across recently that thought they only applied to AOCs.
The FAA are planning to implement it all as well, just under the US system it takes about 20 years for any rule changes to go through.
Interestingly, I understand that the FAA are quite supportive of it all, since apparently one of their biggest headaches is all the aircraft flying around outside North America with "N" painted on them that are not compliant. Until they changed the lifetime registration system a few years ago they reckoned that nearly 50% of them weren't even on the register!
And finally, for all those hysterically shouting "it's illegal", I suggest you learn some basic air law. The regulations of the country you are flying in always apply in addition to those of the country of registration. ICAO has no regulatory power, it is merely an agreement between countries to respect most of each other's licencing etc. But every single country is entitled to "file differences", and many do. In fact I think the UK has one of the highest numbers!
So while EASA has many faults, I think GlobalGlobal is on the right track here.
Last edited by BizJetJock; 20th Oct 2015 at 08:26. Reason: Added to OTAR section
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biz jet jock
That is dressing things up ? I am
Not against oversight of third country aircraft operating in Europe and part M is hard to argue against
I do argue against saddling pilots with holding licences which have no relevance to the aircraft being flown legally or otherwise
Gaining those licences which is expensive for pilots and hardly worthwhile for older pilots who only have a few years to go
This pointless requirement will stop pilots from the right to work and force early retirement on older pilots and for what ?
Pace
That is dressing things up ? I am
Not against oversight of third country aircraft operating in Europe and part M is hard to argue against
I do argue against saddling pilots with holding licences which have no relevance to the aircraft being flown legally or otherwise
Gaining those licences which is expensive for pilots and hardly worthwhile for older pilots who only have a few years to go
This pointless requirement will stop pilots from the right to work and force early retirement on older pilots and for what ?
Pace
Only the right to work in Europe, Pace.
Are you not placing EASA AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?
Could you post the source for your statistics on private versus AOC operators safety records; I'm interested in the topic and would love to take a look at the primary source.
Thanks
Are you not placing EASA AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?
Could you post the source for your statistics on private versus AOC operators safety records; I'm interested in the topic and would love to take a look at the primary source.
Thanks