Part NCC Stuff

[Beaver100]

No, that's not correct and if you read the latest notice it states more than UK operators. It's immaterial to the many who have dealt directly with the Euro MEP's and Parliament leading the policy and derogation. They have written what I posted from my former colleague previously and signed it, and further to this it seems that the UK CAA are misinterpreting what has been written by the Euro MEP's. In no way does part NCC dictate any requirement for a UK validation, it isn't required. The unrestricted airspace and licence derogation has been confirmed by the European Authorities who apparently have full legal jurisdiction over this matter.

Mattman, if you want a copy of the MEP's email confirming this then pm me and I'll forward on your email address to my contact. And yes you are absolutely correct in your decision to continue as are the huge amount of pilots in the same position that have been in contact. I wish you all the best

[BizJetJock]

In no way does part NCC dictate any requirement for a UK validation

Absolutely correct, this is a Part-FCL requirement.
Part -FCL came into effect in 2012, and states that crew of aircraft operated by an entity based in an EASA state must hold EASA licences or validations. Article 12.4 states that member states may elect to defer the implementation of this. Note may not must. The thing that has been put back again and again is the date to which they can defer.
So the CAA has decided that the deferral beyond August will only apply to PPLs effectively, and apparently some other countries have not taken up the deferral at all. The UK's policy therefore applies to aircraft whose operators are based in the UK, France's to French ones, etc.
Letters by an MEP sying that they meant the regulations to mean something else are as much use as yesterday's newspaper if you have an inspector grounding your aircraft because you do not meet the requirements that are actually there. If they meant them to mean something else then they should have written something else.
Having said that, I can't see how there is any way of enforcing it at a ramp check level, it can only be done at an operator audit level. I don't see there being many of those for Part-NCC operators for a long time.

[Beaver100]

I don't wish to argue with you and you are entitled to your opinion. You state operators in the UK but I don't think you have read the latest CAA info notice as operator outside the U.K. seems to be wrongly included too. It is cast iron from lead aviation policy Euro MP's in writing that the derogation applies to all EU countries as they state they represent them all, and it is unrestricted for remunerated and non remunerated, applying to all EU airspace. Not sure why you would argue against it.

[BizJetJock]

I agree that the CAA notice talks about airspace, which just goes to show that the rules are so stupidly complicated that even the authorities don't understand them. But again, how are the UK going to assess the base of the operator of a visiting aircraft in order to decide whether it applies even under their interpretation?
But with regards to MEPs, here is the regulation as published:

by way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008.

Can you tell me how that can be interpreted as all countries will allow third party licences to be used? As I said, no amount of letters from an MEP saying they meant it to say something else is going to change it; they have to change the actual regulation.
The CAA, in their wisdom, have elected to only not apply the rule until August for pilots flying NCC type aircraft. That is 100% within what the rule says, however much we may disagre with it. Life can be tough sometimes.

[Beaver100]

The fact is that EU aviation laws have been a disaster in my opinion from the start, and countries generally fail to translate them correctly. That being said I'll stake my money on a statement from a lead Euro Aviation MP who is responsible for these regulations which they agree that the derogation includes all EU countries airspace, and all pilots including the ones that get paid to fly for a living. So we will just have to agree to disagree on NCC and licences, everyone I know states that NCC is not relevant to the type of licence that you hold and it clearly isn't.

[this is my username]

Here's the regulation:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex

What is says is that member states may decide not to apply the require for an EASA licence. The default is that the requirement for an EASA licence is there unless the state specifically opts out.

[Beaver100]

The EU highest level policy makers have confirmed this is not the case, and that the derogation applies to all EU airspace and all EU countries. Common sense really, if this was the case then segregated airspace with opposing rules in a supposedly common EU aviation authority wouldn't work and is quite pathetic if we think about it logically. Could you ever see anything like this happening in the states ? I don't think so.

[Pace]

Beaver

Check your mail

[Cathar]

I suspect that what the MEP was trying to tell you is that the derogation provision (Article 12.4 of Regulation 1178/2011) applies to all Member States. This is correct. However, as others have pointed out Article 14.4 does not automatically apply the derogation, rather the derogation is an option given to Member States to use or not to use as they see fit.

[apruneuk]

So, the safest bet would be to check with all member states that you intend to visit whether or not they have applied the derogation to 1178/2011, and if so, for how long. The UK CAA have clearly lost patience and have dovetailed their implementation date with that for Part NCC compliance ( for remunerated third country licence holders).
I would also check with insurers as to their stance; they don't need much encouragement to duck out of a claim!
AP

[Beaver100]

Cathar, sorry but that isn't the case at all. A specific set of questions was asked relating to theoretical flights ie depart one country that had opted out and landing in another that hadn't and the legality of the flight. The answer was very clear that it would be legal as the lead policy MEP of the team stated the derogation applies to all EU states as in their own words they are representing them all.

Further questions were asked in the initial stages regarding paid third country licenced pilots flying private aircraft based in Europe. The answer was again clear that this is allowed to continue until at least April next year

Pace, checked my PM but couldn't see a new message, can you resend ?

[Pace]

I would also check with insurers as to their stance; they don't need much encouragement to duck out of a claim!
AP

That would be an interesting one as EASA licenses are not legal or valid on the FAA aircraft being flown and if the pilot holds all the required legal licenses to fly that aircraft as well as the required medicals, type ratings etc the aircraft is legal
The EASA licenses are as useless as toilet paper and have no legal standing on an FAA aircraft so I would imagine not holding the EASA licenses would be a technical infringement rather than an aircraft illegality infringement but interesting point

[Pace]

I suspect that what the MEP was trying to tell you is that the derogation provision (Article 12.4 of Regulation 1178/2011) applies to all Member States. This is correct. However, as others have pointed out Article 14.4 does not automatically apply the derogation, rather the derogation is an option given to Member States to use or not to use as they see fit.

Also interesting is the commission state that the regulation if derogated to 2017 must be in its entirety, not part thereof

The CAA have removed pilots flying private aircraft for remuneration and dumped them under the classification of commercial operation when by EASA definition they are NON commercial

If those pilots are deemed to be non commercial then what the CAA are trying to do is not lawful and it would be up to a court to determine whether the EASA definition is correct or the CAA interpretation
But it's the commissions reference if derogated must be in its entirety which would mean commercial as defined by EASA not interpretated by the CAA

Also interesting is in previous years quite a few countries never derogated some who aviation authorities had no clue hence from the above many of us were operating into these countries illegally and some would claim uninsured as they are this very day
Never heard of a problem before so why now ?

[this is my username]

Hi Pace

Also interesting is the commission state that the regulation if derogated to 2017 must be in its entirety, not part thereof

Would be interested to see where the regs state that - not saying that it isn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

The latest derogation option here:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex

says:

(3)
paragraph 4 of Article 12 is replaced by the following:
‘4. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States may decide not to apply the provisions of this Regulation until 8 April 2017 to pilots holding a licence and associated medical certificate issued by a third country involved in the non-commercial operation of aircraft as specified in Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. Member States shall make those decisions publicly available.’;

Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 say:

(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety
oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are
not used by a Community operator; or

(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for
which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or
used into, within or out of the Community by an operator
established or residing in the Community;

I don't see anything there which either requires a country to derogate (Beaver) or requires them to derogate on an "all or nothing" basis (Pace). If you have got the references to support your assertions then share them with us!

[Beaver100]

The relevant information has been forwarded to the many pilots that have requested it, and it is quite clear. The above generic link that you post is very basic, the EU Parliament and specific MEP group have chosen to make the derogation conditions clear in writing after answering specific questions. The answers are clear, there are no airspace restrictions as this derogation applies to the whole of the EU airspace and it applies to all remunerated and non remunerated pilots. This carries much more value to professional pilots than your link above.

The latest information notice from the UK CAA about this is incorrectly interpreted especially with regard to their definition of commercial operations which of course we don't apply.

Would also like to ask you are you posting about this because you have a specific issue with your professional colleagues trying to make a living ? or are you asking because this issue affects you in your job role ? If so let me know and you can have a copy delivered to you by email

[this is my username]

Hi Beaver

I'm posting because I have met too many pilots of third-country aircraft who have their head in the sand over this and as a result are all too ready to believe what a stranger says on a forum based on private emails which haven't been published rather than reading and understand what the regs say. That's largely because they don't like what the regs say and so it is much more convenient for them to believe something else.

When they get ramped or have an accident are the inspectors going to refer to unpublished emails or to what is written in the regulations?

I'll bow out now as I've said my piece. I really do hope that things work out in your favour. In the meantime I will keep working with the rules as they are written.

[Beaver100]

T.I.M.U. The current wording of the link that you previously posted I suggest has been incorrectly interpreted by the UK CAA, so if unchanged would need at least national level court intervention.
Coupled with that we have signed email statements from the MEP's who actually approved the derogation in their own words to apply to all EU countries, all EU airspace and all remunerated (or not) third country licenced pilots. I don't think it would be wise to ignore what they have stated.

It is absolutely imperative that this is cleared up as the MEP's quite rightly meant this derogation to mean something else entirely to your link or the UK CAA, their emails do have legal merit.

As for your other comments about pilots of third country aircraft I don't believe that is the case at all. They are all flying legally with the licences or validations of their state of aircraft registry. They have a right to question and challenge interventions to their livelihood, especially when those interventions from an unelected body (EASA) are vague, incorrectly written compared to EU policymakers statements and are ultimately against the human rights and employment laws of those professional pilots

[Pace]

Username

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 6 April 2016.

From your own link

Member states have the choice to derogate or not but as stated the regulation shall be binding in its entirety
That does not mean part of, can be selective or reinterpret definitions which are already clearly determined and defined by EASA

Commercial is already clearly defined and does not mean pilots being paid to fly private aircraft.

It is the entirety part where I think the CAA would trip up on their latest home made interpretation of commercial.

Strangely we made a challenge on validations based on what was commercial or not commercial and i have a letter from the head of CAA stating the mistake and that we are non commercial in our operations so they change opinion year to year

I personally feel there is a solid legal challenge potential there but will need to get advice. They have made wishful thinking mistakes before in my experience

[Someflyer]

Beaver,

Don't shoot the messenger here, but TIMU, Pace and many others are raising a genuine concern which deals with the legality of the process we are now facing.

At the end of the day, the European court will act upon the laws and rules published by the parliament and not by statements or intentions of a single or several MEP's.

I do recognize the authority of the MEP in question and her intentions to do the right thing but as an old instructor once told me "If it ain't written in the regs, It doesn't exist !" You can bring her emails to the poor pilots trial who just got caught flying only on his 3rd country license, and
you will see the judge throwing it out of the window because for him, it's like a note from your mother allowing you to play with your friends in the garden. He can not (and will not) make any ruling based on exchange of emails.

You can argue at the end of the day that these regulations are limiting our livelihood and therefor our human rights and ability to work, that is a completely different issue which if tackled correctly in court will probably bring the right results.

As for our friends from the FAA, the latest I hear is that they are confused by this matter. They are talking to EASA as the representing body of Europe, but now, every state is taking her own interpretation to these stupid regulations they don't know who they are suppose to clear this matter with.

It also looks like the UK CAA and the DGCA are deliberately trying to shoot down the attempts for 3rd country CPL/ATPL license holders Bi-lateral agreement which will probably mean several people loosing/changing jobs (we know how fond of that government employees are) so we are also looking at internal childish power struggles.

I said my piece, I will probably be off soon to Asia for a contract. I hope there I will be away from this European hornet nest that is bubbling so nicely lately.

[Pace]

At the end of the day, the European court will act upon the laws and rules published by the parliament and not by statements or intentions of a single or several MEP's.

I agree with that and it is up to those MEPs to get things changed if incorrectly instigated

my points above are to do with regulations and the letter of those regulations in Law and here I think the CAA have tripped up on their interpretations ENTIRETY being the key word and that leaves no scope to change definitions applied to the regulations by EASA to suit what some clever clogs regulator at the CAA want

I am sure these are just delaying tactics for the inevitable so I still hope the CAA might realise that they are dealing with people and their livelihoods
FAA in Europe has been legal established practice in the EU for longer than the EU has been in existence.
So much so that pilots had set up legitimate business for a long time.

i am sure these CAA employees would equally be horrified if their work and livelihoods were removed at the stroke of a political Pen
it was always historically that the CAA where damaging legislation change caused hardship to innocent people that some sort of grandfather rights were given. It would have been easy to have given restricted ATP or CPL restricted to private operations or annual validations for older pilots while they ran out their careers but the disregard of human rights to work or discrimination laws in treating these pilots as inhuman beings is disgusting

The vast majority of us take as much pride in our work as anyone and my aim is not to abolish these stupid regulations because that is what they are but to get these pilots treated with the respect and consideration they deserve by the authorities and not as vermin to be eliminated