More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!
From Fly Corporate, another interesting article on the Part NCC debacle!
(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)
05/01/2015
In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.
In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.
In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.
What operational structure to set up?
As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.
First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.
The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.
And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?
Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.
A level playing field?
As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.
Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.
This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?
Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?
The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.
The responsibility of the EU
Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.
This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.
While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.
European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.
Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney
(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)
05/01/2015
In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.
In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.
In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.
What operational structure to set up?
As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.
First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.
The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.
And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?
Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.
A level playing field?
As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.
Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.
This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?
Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?
The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.
The responsibility of the EU
Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.
This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.
While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.
European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.
Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The playing field will never actually be level while EASA rules are so sloppily drafted and national authorities are given leeway to exempt and decideindividual cases.
The EU has a worrying tendency to declare a "law" with no detail and allow the rules to develop far too slowly for real people to plan their lives and their business.
I don't know what the solution might be, so I left.
The EU has a worrying tendency to declare a "law" with no detail and allow the rules to develop far too slowly for real people to plan their lives and their business.
I don't know what the solution might be, so I left.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least bloody NetJets and the like will love it, cause no one in their right mind will buy a new airplane for a new private operation any more. NCC is in todays form a mess and a nightmare. The fun part is to try to get any real info from the LBA about on how, when and what shape to implement the sh!te...
Complex operation: less than 20 pilots etc, one is non complex, unless you operate with B/Prnav...WTF ? 18.5 years to retirement, I just hope I make it there soon enough....
Complex operation: less than 20 pilots etc, one is non complex, unless you operate with B/Prnav...WTF ? 18.5 years to retirement, I just hope I make it there soon enough....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from the Swiss Lawyer below,
"This European intrusion into the competence of the State of Registry, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs"
So, the State of Registry for Third Country Operators are having their competency questioned by none other than EASA, this must be a joke !
The benefits of being N reg, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM etc are that this kind of tripe shouldn't be allowed to happen. Can they please either independently or collectively put an end to this rubbish and go forward with keeping the business of thousands of loyal companies that have kept them in jobs.
If the requirement is to maintain two different sets of rules for state of registry and NAA / EASA then the question of responsibility in case of accidents etc, makes the whole process unworkable and illegal for the insurance process.
"This European intrusion into the competence of the State of Registry, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs"
So, the State of Registry for Third Country Operators are having their competency questioned by none other than EASA, this must be a joke !
The benefits of being N reg, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM etc are that this kind of tripe shouldn't be allowed to happen. Can they please either independently or collectively put an end to this rubbish and go forward with keeping the business of thousands of loyal companies that have kept them in jobs.
If the requirement is to maintain two different sets of rules for state of registry and NAA / EASA then the question of responsibility in case of accidents etc, makes the whole process unworkable and illegal for the insurance process.
From Fly Corporate, another interesting article on the Part NCC debacle!
(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)
05/01/2015
In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.
In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.
In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.
What operational structure to set up?
As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.
First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.
The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.
And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?
Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.
A level playing field?
As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.
Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.
This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?
Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?
The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.
The responsibility of the EU
Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.
This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.
While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.
European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.
Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney
(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)
05/01/2015
In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.
In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.
In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.
What operational structure to set up?
As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.
First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.
The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.
And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?
Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.
A level playing field?
As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.
Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.
This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?
Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?
The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.
The responsibility of the EU
Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.
This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.
While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.
European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.
Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
calm down!
It's really not that hard. Take the SOR regulations, compare them to the ICAO and EASA regulations and comply with the most onerous of the the three. It's a paperwork job to compare them and the end result is your operation will be as safe as it can possibly be.
Fly safe
Fly safe
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in the wild blue yonder
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA is full of lawyers and bureaucrats.
It's in both these groups interests and long term survival and growth to make any system impenetrably complex and requiring massive administration. I'd say job well done.
What they don't have is clear identifiable and measurable objectives related to the real-world and against which they retain or loose their jobs. Unlike the rest of us who are subject to their shenanigans.
there's the rub...!
It's in both these groups interests and long term survival and growth to make any system impenetrably complex and requiring massive administration. I'd say job well done.
What they don't have is clear identifiable and measurable objectives related to the real-world and against which they retain or loose their jobs. Unlike the rest of us who are subject to their shenanigans.
there's the rub...!
It's really not that hard. Take the SOR regulations, compare them to the ICAO and EASA regulations and comply with the most onerous of the the three. It's a paperwork job to compare them and the end result is your operation will be as safe as it can possibly be.
Fly safe
Fly safe
The correct word is "legally".
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The State of Registry is the legally binding authority along with their regulations under their laws. This is what is paid for through these authorities by the aircraft owners, and this is what is legal and correct from an airworthiness, operational and regulatory viewpoint. If this is to be undermined or if two sets of regulations are having to be followed, then it ultimately clouds the area of flying legally should an accident occur.
Also, are you saying then that Ops manual templates currently being worked on by some private register CAA's are likely to be useless, and that another countries more onerous CAA Ops manual regulations need to be followed ?
I find this highly unprofessional both towards the operators concerned and to the extremely well qualified professionals currently writing the templates, for use by the operators on their private registries.
Also, are you saying then that Ops manual templates currently being worked on by some private register CAA's are likely to be useless, and that another countries more onerous CAA Ops manual regulations need to be followed ?
I find this highly unprofessional both towards the operators concerned and to the extremely well qualified professionals currently writing the templates, for use by the operators on their private registries.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think any half decent flight departments look at the regulations as the minimum level they need to achieve, not the target they must strive to achieve. As soon as the industry as a whole stops looking at what they have to do "legally" and instead concentrate on what they must do to ensure safe operations we will see less moaning by individuals about EASA standards. Look to ICAO, EASA and your SOR; determine which of the standards are most onerous for each area of operation and aim to exceed them. If you're aiming to tick the boxes you really aren't running a safe operation.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: london
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an extraordinary thing to say! So you're suggesting that by fully complying with every applicable EASA regulation is not a sufficient standard to be safe???????
One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......
One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you're suggesting that by fully complying with every applicable EASA regulation is not a sufficient standard to be safe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main threat of safety is when you start operating outside of your Aircraft State of Registry laws / ANO etc. This will inevitably lead to more incidents and accidents and be a less safe operation. There have been many Operators over the years where this has indeed caused safety incidents - operating outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules, therefore essentially uninsurable as a result.
Any half decent flight department with zero safety violations over many years will of course question why they are now seemingly being ordered to operate outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules (by EASA, a non ICAO entity), and as a result rendering every flight likely uninsurable. This is clearly not acceptable.
Any half decent flight department with zero safety violations over many years will of course question why they are now seemingly being ordered to operate outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules (by EASA, a non ICAO entity), and as a result rendering every flight likely uninsurable. This is clearly not acceptable.
I think any half decent flight departments look at the regulations as the minimum level they need to achieve, not the target they must strive to achieve. As soon as the industry as a whole stops looking at what they have to do "legally" and instead concentrate on what they must do to ensure safe operations we will see less moaning by individuals about EASA standards. Look to ICAO, EASA and your SOR; determine which of the standards are most onerous for each area of operation and aim to exceed them. If you're aiming to tick the boxes you really aren't running a safe operation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......
Safety ? Think that's way down the list
One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......
To justify their ridiculous paychecks, and to show the paying public that "they are doing something".
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main threat of safety is when you start operating outside of your Aircraft State of Registry laws / ANO etc. This will inevitably lead to more incidents and accidents and be a less safe operation. There have been many Operators over the years where this has indeed caused safety incidents - operating outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules, therefore essentially uninsurable as a result.
Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.
That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be law in EU states but we are discussing non EU states of Registry and their associated laws / ANO etc, such as FAA, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM, Aruba etc. None of these are EU states and each has its own separate legislation. The Owner / Operator putting their plane on these private registers has to adhere by law to the State of Registry, and pay all associated fees for registration, airworthiness etc.
When it is demanded that you adopt legislation from outside the State of Registry you are of course going to be extremely concerned that this is therefore going to register your insurance policy void and flight operations illegal.
Part NCC may well supersede legislation at a national level for EU countries, but definitely not for non EU countries. If it did it is a slippery slope and it won't be long before EASA try to turn on the other legislation issued from these registries (if they don't stand up to them now) EASA simply don't have any legal right especially as a non ICAO entity to do this to a non EU State of Registry.
It comes down to legal oversight of the non EU States of Registry. These states are not part of the EU, EASA is also not a member of ICAO, so in the event of accident or incident if these laws are forced on non EU aircraft registries then you are likely uninsured, as you have adopted legislation from a (non ICAO) EU body for an aircraft registered outside of Europe.
Rather like for example CASA poking their nose into these registries and trying to force you to adopt say some of Australia's ANO / legislation into your own because someone at CASA told you to do so. The moment you step outside the remit of your own non EU State of Registry and their legislation you will eventually run into legal difficulties.
When it is demanded that you adopt legislation from outside the State of Registry you are of course going to be extremely concerned that this is therefore going to register your insurance policy void and flight operations illegal.
Part NCC may well supersede legislation at a national level for EU countries, but definitely not for non EU countries. If it did it is a slippery slope and it won't be long before EASA try to turn on the other legislation issued from these registries (if they don't stand up to them now) EASA simply don't have any legal right especially as a non ICAO entity to do this to a non EU State of Registry.
It comes down to legal oversight of the non EU States of Registry. These states are not part of the EU, EASA is also not a member of ICAO, so in the event of accident or incident if these laws are forced on non EU aircraft registries then you are likely uninsured, as you have adopted legislation from a (non ICAO) EU body for an aircraft registered outside of Europe.
Rather like for example CASA poking their nose into these registries and trying to force you to adopt say some of Australia's ANO / legislation into your own because someone at CASA told you to do so. The moment you step outside the remit of your own non EU State of Registry and their legislation you will eventually run into legal difficulties.
Part-NCC and the rest of Regulation 965/2012 for EASA Air Operations is the law in all EU member states, in the same way Part-CAT is for AOC operators. It automatically superceeds and overrides all equivalent legislation at national level. The ANO in the UK will be updated in 2016 to reflect this when NCO/NCC comes into force. There isn't really any question over its legal status.
Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.
That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.
Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.
That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaver, I agree there is some lack of clarity around the issue of where the operator resides and the associated implications of that. But practically speaking, the question that should be asked is whether the operator is resident in the EU or not. If they are, then EASA rules apply, regardless of the registration of the aircraft. If outside the EU...and the aircraft is not registered in the EU, then you escape...
The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.
It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.
The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.
It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right to suggest for Operators to wait until early next year.
But what difference does Operator location have to do with anything ? It's nothing to do with safety then.
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.
Ops manual templates issued by the professional aviation personnel at these non EU States of Registry will seemingly be invalid then, and some Operators forced to adopt an EU states Ops manual template instead.
But what difference does Operator location have to do with anything ? It's nothing to do with safety then.
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.
Ops manual templates issued by the professional aviation personnel at these non EU States of Registry will seemingly be invalid then, and some Operators forced to adopt an EU states Ops manual template instead.
Beaver, I agree there is some lack of clarity around the issue of where the operator resides and the associated implications of that. But practically speaking, the question that should be asked is whether the operator is resident in the EU or not. If they are, then EASA rules apply, regardless of the registration of the aircraft. If outside the EU...and the aircraft is not registered in the EU, then you escape...
The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.
It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.
The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.
It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean the short answer is that operators will have to find a way of being compliant with both - if the two are in conflict I agree there is confusion.
I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is though, I fly both UK and N-reg aircraft in Europe and as long as one complies with whichever set of rules imposes the higher requirements, you are OK. I've yet to come across a scenario in which the two are in conflict to the point that compliance with both is impossible.
Leaving aside that issue though, it has always been the case that states may apply rules to the aircraft of other states when flying within their national boundaries - the fact that the origin of those laws comes from the EU does change that - it is still the law in those member states as if passed at national level.
I suppose this point could be debated for ever, we'll just have to wait and see I guess...
I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is though, I fly both UK and N-reg aircraft in Europe and as long as one complies with whichever set of rules imposes the higher requirements, you are OK. I've yet to come across a scenario in which the two are in conflict to the point that compliance with both is impossible.
Leaving aside that issue though, it has always been the case that states may apply rules to the aircraft of other states when flying within their national boundaries - the fact that the origin of those laws comes from the EU does change that - it is still the law in those member states as if passed at national level.
I suppose this point could be debated for ever, we'll just have to wait and see I guess...