N-Reg aircraft based in UK
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is forcing you, as an individual, to get an EASA licence. These rules apply to operators, and say that if the operator is based in EASA-land they are not permitted to use any pilots that don't have an EASA licence. It then becomes a purely commercial decision on your part whether you invest the time and effort to get one.
Incidentally, this is not an EASA invention. All they are doing is implementing the requirements of ICAO Annexe VI. Bermuda and the Cayman islands (and other UK Overseas Territories) have had these requirements for years. But since they will validate anyone else's licence then the issue doesn't have the same obvious effect.
Incidentally, this is not an EASA invention. All they are doing is implementing the requirements of ICAO Annexe VI. Bermuda and the Cayman islands (and other UK Overseas Territories) have had these requirements for years. But since they will validate anyone else's licence then the issue doesn't have the same obvious effect.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who invented the term "operator" in this context and what the heck does it mean? Did anybody have found a clear definition to check if an when one is an "operator" by means of EASA private flying?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the title it says "in UK" but this pretty much is same for all the EASA countries...
Do you have any idea of N-registered planes that has different rating requirements in FAA and EASA?
Like Beech King Air 90s...They have to have type rating in EASA but no rating required in FAA. And same is with Cessna turboprops which require only "SE Land" in FAA but would require Cessna SET in EASA.
If I operate an US-registered Caravan in EASA-country with EASA-licence do I need ratings according to EASA or FAA?
Do you have any idea of N-registered planes that has different rating requirements in FAA and EASA?
Like Beech King Air 90s...They have to have type rating in EASA but no rating required in FAA. And same is with Cessna turboprops which require only "SE Land" in FAA but would require Cessna SET in EASA.
If I operate an US-registered Caravan in EASA-country with EASA-licence do I need ratings according to EASA or FAA?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the title it says "in UK" but this pretty much is same for all the EASA countries...
Do you have any idea of N-registered planes that has different rating requirements in FAA and EASA?
Like Beech King Air 90s...They have to have type rating in EASA but no rating required in FAA. And same is with Cessna turboprops which require only "SE Land" in FAA but would require Cessna SET in EASA.
If I operate an US-registered Caravan in EASA-country with EASA-licence do I need ratings according to EASA or FAA?
Do you have any idea of N-registered planes that has different rating requirements in FAA and EASA?
Like Beech King Air 90s...They have to have type rating in EASA but no rating required in FAA. And same is with Cessna turboprops which require only "SE Land" in FAA but would require Cessna SET in EASA.
If I operate an US-registered Caravan in EASA-country with EASA-licence do I need ratings according to EASA or FAA?
If you fly you Caravan for compensation or for hire ( sounds familiar ?? ) THEN you need a part.NCO AND an EASA rating on it.
If you own a N register caravan, and are not paid to do so ( pleasure), then your FAA ticket is enough, however if operated from EASA land, then part.NCO
Last edited by CL300; 9th Nov 2016 at 07:27.
Well I could have used that 8000 euros for something else too...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The spirit of the regulation is to have people with EASA licenses IF the aircraft is based in EASA Land. All countries are sovereign over their territory, as a consequence, IF you are paid for driving a plane, and that you are based in EASA, THEN you need an EASA License, ELSE you are not in the scope of law.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK American Airlines does not fly London to Birmingham nor has its operation and pilots based in UK. Fifth right prevents this. AA does USofA to wherever and back. Like anyone else, on top AA is NOT a part NCC ops, it is a FAR part 121 operator, as such its business lies from/to USA.
Now it is very simple, you can shout and cry, BUT at the end of the day Ramp checks have started, fines are already levied. Regardless of the trustee ( USA case), the aircraft operated mainly in Europe is/was imported, it was imported in the EU ( whatever state), and it flies from somewhere, this somewhere is where the Part.NCC has to be located. I have customer's addresses in Belgium/Luxembourg/San Marino, aircrafts registered everywhere, BUT located in France as their main base of operations, France is competent. Period.
The first two countries where EXTENSIVES ramp checks have been performed lately are Netherlands and Romania. Extensive goes to the point of the SPA for EFB was requested where an LOA was issued in lieu of... Requesting clarification within 45 days.
So the SIPRIT of the LAW is this, it is not me who wrote or vote for it .... LoL
Now it is very simple, you can shout and cry, BUT at the end of the day Ramp checks have started, fines are already levied. Regardless of the trustee ( USA case), the aircraft operated mainly in Europe is/was imported, it was imported in the EU ( whatever state), and it flies from somewhere, this somewhere is where the Part.NCC has to be located. I have customer's addresses in Belgium/Luxembourg/San Marino, aircrafts registered everywhere, BUT located in France as their main base of operations, France is competent. Period.
The first two countries where EXTENSIVES ramp checks have been performed lately are Netherlands and Romania. Extensive goes to the point of the SPA for EFB was requested where an LOA was issued in lieu of... Requesting clarification within 45 days.
So the SIPRIT of the LAW is this, it is not me who wrote or vote for it .... LoL
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly mostly for a UK AOC holder, but do a little private (corporate) flying in a Hawker on the Isle of Man register. The aircraft is EU VAT paid, and rightly enough in Rotterdam we were ramp checked last month.
They asked the question (to which I could not answer/chose not to answer) as to why the aircraft was EU VAT paid but the operator was registered in a non EU country. I didn't know SAFA inspectors were concerned about aircraft VAT, when checked in LBG it is always customs.
Is this a new gotcha to catch out third country crews operating in Europe? (I'm UK licenced and F/O was FAA certified, both with IOM validations of course, both British passport holders)
This operator keeps a trip folder to give to the SAFA inspectors. I'm wondering if the VAT certificate was not in that folder, would they even have asked?
They asked the question (to which I could not answer/chose not to answer) as to why the aircraft was EU VAT paid but the operator was registered in a non EU country. I didn't know SAFA inspectors were concerned about aircraft VAT, when checked in LBG it is always customs.
Is this a new gotcha to catch out third country crews operating in Europe? (I'm UK licenced and F/O was FAA certified, both with IOM validations of course, both British passport holders)
This operator keeps a trip folder to give to the SAFA inspectors. I'm wondering if the VAT certificate was not in that folder, would they even have asked?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL300,
I am not going to get involved in a p@ss@ng contest with you, and if you wish to put yourself up on the forum as the resident expert it's fine by me. However when you keep trotting out nonsense, and try to disguise it with misplaced and completely irrelevant references to VAT and "Fifth Rights," it demonstrates that you have not even bothered to read the legislation. Had you done so, and in this respect let's concentrate on the licencing issue and TCO's, you would know that the word "base" does not feature in it.
It matters not one iota where the aircraft is based, and neither does it make a scrap of difference where the crew may be based, live or even reside. What DOES matter is where the operator resides, and this has been clarified in the guidance material. Operator IS defined, and so too is how one determines where the operator really does reside. Read it CL300 and then by all means get back to me if you think I am crying or shouting.
Oh yes? Fined by whom precisely? You obviously know that SAFA produce records of inspections carried out and such fines are a matter of public record. With that in mind pray tell who has been fined and for what offense in this context they were prosecuted for? I question this because I really don't believe you, especially because of the recent announcement made by SAFA relating to how this matter will be treated...something I guess you may not have read.
If you wish to respond please be kind enough to restrict your answers to the matter in hand, show me where you believe the word "base" is referenced and in what context, and try not to cloud the matter with VAT, importation, Part 121 or any other fancy terms that you think may help improve your credentials.
If that's too complicated for you, and if you don't manage to find details of who got fined and where, perhaps you could answer me one very simple question:
ABC company is the operator of an M registered GLEX. ABC company has its principle place of business in Canada, but bases its GLEX at Linate in Italy for most of the year. The GLEX is crewed by Italian pilots who live in Milan, and they only have American licences which are validated by the Isle of Man. Are you suggesting that they are flying illegally, and if so please explain your logic.
I am not going to get involved in a p@ss@ng contest with you, and if you wish to put yourself up on the forum as the resident expert it's fine by me. However when you keep trotting out nonsense, and try to disguise it with misplaced and completely irrelevant references to VAT and "Fifth Rights," it demonstrates that you have not even bothered to read the legislation. Had you done so, and in this respect let's concentrate on the licencing issue and TCO's, you would know that the word "base" does not feature in it.
It matters not one iota where the aircraft is based, and neither does it make a scrap of difference where the crew may be based, live or even reside. What DOES matter is where the operator resides, and this has been clarified in the guidance material. Operator IS defined, and so too is how one determines where the operator really does reside. Read it CL300 and then by all means get back to me if you think I am crying or shouting.
Now it is very simple, you can shout and cry, BUT at the end of the day Ramp checks have started, fines are already levied.
If you wish to respond please be kind enough to restrict your answers to the matter in hand, show me where you believe the word "base" is referenced and in what context, and try not to cloud the matter with VAT, importation, Part 121 or any other fancy terms that you think may help improve your credentials.
If that's too complicated for you, and if you don't manage to find details of who got fined and where, perhaps you could answer me one very simple question:
ABC company is the operator of an M registered GLEX. ABC company has its principle place of business in Canada, but bases its GLEX at Linate in Italy for most of the year. The GLEX is crewed by Italian pilots who live in Milan, and they only have American licences which are validated by the Isle of Man. Are you suggesting that they are flying illegally, and if so please explain your logic.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABC company is the operator of an M registered GLEX. ABC company has its principle place of business in Canada, but bases its GLEX at Linate in Italy for most of the year. The GLEX is crewed by Italian pilots who live in Milan, and they only have American licences which are validated by the Isle of Man. Are you suggesting that they are flying illegally, and if so please explain your logic.
If your GLEX spends more than 185 days per year or one year with three years on the italian soil, it will have to be imported in the EU.The place you imported your GLEX in can be considered as place of operation ( but this is in the last resort, ask people whom import their plane in Denmark years ago) Your IOM company (even though not EASA but ICAO if i am not wrong) set for the purpose of owning an asset outside Canada will be considered the operator. An aircraft, you like it or not has a base, you will find this information generally on the insurance contract. This base can be considered as the place of normal operations. Your crew base ( where they are resting or domiciled normally and are taking their duty from) can be considered as a base of operation ( ask RYR).
Your case is a bit short-cut and not thorough enough for me to give a definitive answer, and i charge 1000€ per day for auditing these things.
I can speak only from the cases i have, customers that are coming to me having been bitten by the system . Two recent examples:
CJ1 ( N registered, plane in Cannes, Operator/Owner in Belgium) Part.NCC being made in France in AMS having accepted the PRNAV approach and not having the proper SPA was fined "on spot" for 2500€, the owner came to me with the "invoice " in hand.
Falcon T7 registered,(French Crew, T7 validation, operator in San-Marino based in France Part.NCC french based) being Ramped checked in Romania, aircraft impounded for 24 hours waiting for a Fax to confirm that the EFB usage was operating under the proper LOA .
I have a lot of these, and honestly , i'am just fixing things. I do not want to be right or wrong , i just tell you that this is what is happening NOW. The audits are set to happen from february ( this is at the place of business, and i have already dates set from various countries agencies to operator, to check the archives, the manual, the crew records etc...)
So, this is how it is, and one more i am not judging if it is ok or not ok.
To come back to your GLEX, a second advice would be nice....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I agree for the term operator place of residence; and if you just blank read the Annex VI of AIROPS 965/2012; you can live happy ever after.
Of course you couldn't leave it at that could you? Now you introduce more red herrings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter. What has EFB's or operating approvals (PRNAV in your example) got to do with TCO's and the licences that TCO crew should have? Absolutely NOTHING.
I wouldn't let you fix anything more complex than a food mixer, let alone let you get near to the paperwork of my airplane, but hey ho if you have happy customers good for you. I hope that the time you spend here every day posting drivel doesn't impinge on getting your clients out of the trouble that you probably got them into.
I'm out of here!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i hope to meet you face to face one day, it will be interesting discussion. Well , you know , since i spend a lot of time in front of a computer ( for obvious reasons lol) I have some breaks during my days, and i am always interested in what is written here and there.
I am not a counselor, what i just say is there is regulations, the spirit of regulations, and what the enforcement in countries are. Period.
The broader view on my examples above is the fact that authorities are indeed looking deeply into NCC, much deeper than they use to. My advice is not based solely on what i think is the best, it is backed by law firms, various DGCA or CAA or LBA or whatever authority you can think of, and what they will ultimately choose as an option fi they do not find suitable material.
You need to open your mind a bit more...
The thing is that you will not come back here telling your curse, on the other hand, i know that the operations that i set up for my customers are at time of issue bulletproof; now they have to follow the book, but this is not of my responsibility.
I audited them, WE produced the paperwork, I trained them, now they have to do it...
And I will quit this discussion as well, since my last two manuals are in the final stage, and i am moving to new stuff.
You have my deepest sympathy
I am not a counselor, what i just say is there is regulations, the spirit of regulations, and what the enforcement in countries are. Period.
The broader view on my examples above is the fact that authorities are indeed looking deeply into NCC, much deeper than they use to. My advice is not based solely on what i think is the best, it is backed by law firms, various DGCA or CAA or LBA or whatever authority you can think of, and what they will ultimately choose as an option fi they do not find suitable material.
You need to open your mind a bit more...
The thing is that you will not come back here telling your curse, on the other hand, i know that the operations that i set up for my customers are at time of issue bulletproof; now they have to follow the book, but this is not of my responsibility.
I audited them, WE produced the paperwork, I trained them, now they have to do it...
And I will quit this discussion as well, since my last two manuals are in the final stage, and i am moving to new stuff.
You have my deepest sympathy
Last edited by CL300; 13th Nov 2016 at 08:50.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well regarding my previous question about requiring a CessnaSET...If my Cessna is N-registered can an EASA ATO do the SET-training with an N-registered aircraft? ORA.ATO.135 just states that
ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
(a) The ATO shall use an adequate fleet of training aircraft or FSTDs appropriately equipped for the training courses provided..
I can not locate any requirements that the aircraft must have CofA or ARC issued by an EASA-country. So is it possible to do the training with N-reg in EASA-country? Atleast the EASA-ATOs in the USA seems to do their training with N-registered planes...
-Harri
ORA.ATO.135 Training aircraft and FSTDs
(a) The ATO shall use an adequate fleet of training aircraft or FSTDs appropriately equipped for the training courses provided..
I can not locate any requirements that the aircraft must have CofA or ARC issued by an EASA-country. So is it possible to do the training with N-reg in EASA-country? Atleast the EASA-ATOs in the USA seems to do their training with N-registered planes...
-Harri
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harriko, yes you can, but you need an EASA CRI/TRI. there is some limitations depending on the country, like the flight can only be done within the country of issuance of the TRI, etc.. but again, this is not cast in concrete.
Your issue will be to find an ATO with the actual plane and program approved.
I do not know about Finland, and a call to you authority is sometimes faster than gathering informations here..
Your issue will be to find an ATO with the actual plane and program approved.
I do not know about Finland, and a call to you authority is sometimes faster than gathering informations here..
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harriko, yes you can, but you need an EASA CRI/TRI. there is some limitations depending on the country, like the flight can only be done within the country of issuance of the TRI, etc.. but again, this is not cast in concrete.
Your issue will be to find an ATO with the actual plane and program approved.
I do not know about Finland, and a call to you authority is sometimes faster than gathering informations here..
Your issue will be to find an ATO with the actual plane and program approved.
I do not know about Finland, and a call to you authority is sometimes faster than gathering informations here..
Just wanted to hear if someone knows a specific rule that prohibits the usage of third country registered. I read through the Commission regulation 1178/2011 and wasn't able to find anything that would deny this.
And Finnish CAA is on weekend leave and I am about to contact them tomorrow and ask if they would approve the training.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What i can tell you is that there is an ATO in France doing its EASA rating on N registered CJ. Not only for the "bounces" but as well for a part of the syllabus, since the sim is only a fixed based one.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Validations
The requirements regarding validations for those flying non EASA aircraft for remuneration have been in the making for sometime. Policy at the CAA is
taking a very simple approach within the UK. If you fly a non EASA aircraft within Europe on a non EASA license (not just N reg but M and others) and are remunerated for doing so you must have applied and obtained a validation by last August. The validation is in essence an LST carried out by a TRE/SFE and the 1158 has to be submitted to the CAA to obtain the validation. You then have a year in which to obtain an EASA license, however in some cases the CAA "may" extend the validation for a further year if the applicant can demonstrate that they are completing their exams. The regulations only apply to those who live in Europe and the aircraft is based in Europe. If the aircraft is registered outside Europe but actually spends its time within you are not exempt the validation rules. Simply if the pilot has an address outside Europe but actually lives in Europe this also does not exempt you from the requirements.This has nothing to do with Part NCC. If you fly a non EASA aircraft but are not remunerated that is only fine until next April when the rules will apply to all. So any PPLs flying a SEP on a N reg based in Europe for example will need to obtain an EASA PPL. As for type ratings you can have a type rating put on to your EASA license and are exempt from a type rating only if you have 500 hours on type and pass an LST. You may also only have one validation so if you fly two types on an FAA license for example you have to have dropped one. As you would expect the UK CAA is strictly applying the rules and a ramp check can prove very embarrassing as some have already discovered. The rest of Europe appears not to be enforcing the requirements with such vigour. As a TRE who has completed a number of validations I am also aware that the authorities have been looking at where aircraft are really based a opposed to where the operator says that are based.
taking a very simple approach within the UK. If you fly a non EASA aircraft within Europe on a non EASA license (not just N reg but M and others) and are remunerated for doing so you must have applied and obtained a validation by last August. The validation is in essence an LST carried out by a TRE/SFE and the 1158 has to be submitted to the CAA to obtain the validation. You then have a year in which to obtain an EASA license, however in some cases the CAA "may" extend the validation for a further year if the applicant can demonstrate that they are completing their exams. The regulations only apply to those who live in Europe and the aircraft is based in Europe. If the aircraft is registered outside Europe but actually spends its time within you are not exempt the validation rules. Simply if the pilot has an address outside Europe but actually lives in Europe this also does not exempt you from the requirements.This has nothing to do with Part NCC. If you fly a non EASA aircraft but are not remunerated that is only fine until next April when the rules will apply to all. So any PPLs flying a SEP on a N reg based in Europe for example will need to obtain an EASA PPL. As for type ratings you can have a type rating put on to your EASA license and are exempt from a type rating only if you have 500 hours on type and pass an LST. You may also only have one validation so if you fly two types on an FAA license for example you have to have dropped one. As you would expect the UK CAA is strictly applying the rules and a ramp check can prove very embarrassing as some have already discovered. The rest of Europe appears not to be enforcing the requirements with such vigour. As a TRE who has completed a number of validations I am also aware that the authorities have been looking at where aircraft are really based a opposed to where the operator says that are based.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: London
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I left the industry so I really don't care, but I see no examples in your posting of where this supposed rule is derived from ? It's not NCC as you say but if someone is relating it to another European law then I would be very careful. One good court case and win for the pilot or operator is highly likely in this scenario, and would have far reaching repercussions. Aircrew Reg 1178/2011 specifically relates the location of the operator as to which type of licence they should hold. If it's outside of Europe then it doesn't need to be an EASA licence or validation. Now, you or others can come back at me with a poorly worded version of something hastily written which is totally different from 1178/2011, but to rely on that in court when a pilot or operator is suing and has the specific wording of the European law means you will lose.
I doubt your examples above, same as CL300 postings, a friend of a friend down the pub told me such and such has been fined etc doesn't really add up. Or could there be a financial motivation for you to post ? Only asking.
If we ever leave the EU I would also suggest that it's highly unlikely that 1178/2011 could be enshrined into U.K. Law. I mean how ? The wording specifically relates to an operator based in the EU, and as we won't be then I fail to see how they can impose NCC or licence rules on European operators, and operators based outside of the EU will continue to be not affected by all of this mess.
I doubt your examples above, same as CL300 postings, a friend of a friend down the pub told me such and such has been fined etc doesn't really add up. Or could there be a financial motivation for you to post ? Only asking.
If we ever leave the EU I would also suggest that it's highly unlikely that 1178/2011 could be enshrined into U.K. Law. I mean how ? The wording specifically relates to an operator based in the EU, and as we won't be then I fail to see how they can impose NCC or licence rules on European operators, and operators based outside of the EU will continue to be not affected by all of this mess.