PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. (https://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc-36/)
-   -   EASA N reg and AOPA Latest (https://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/429240-easa-n-reg-aopa-latest.html)

Pace 1st Oct 2010 06:47

EASA N reg and AOPA Latest
 
Here is the latest from AOPA

EASA to move against the N-register

EASA has finally shown its hand on the issue of N-registered aircraft based in Europe, and the news is bad. The Agency intends to make it illegal for pilots domiciled in Europe to fly perrmanently in Europe on American licenses, which will come as a hammer blow to holders of the FAA Instrument Rating. An estimated 10,000 European pilots will have to convert to JAA or EASA licenses, by a process and at a cost that has yet to be established. In the case of the Instrument Rating, it is not clear whether any credit at all will be given for having an FAA IR when applying for a European equivalent. It will certainly mean substantial and costly additional training and the sitting of seven examinations. The number of pilots driven out of general aviation, or declining to come in, is likely to be high.
IAOPA is particularly aghast at the sweeping nature of EASA’s intentions because they have nothing to do with safety. Over the decades in which the current system has pertained there have been no safety issues with oversight, with instrument flying, with maintenance or any other factor. General aviation is being sucked into a trade war involving the big beasts at Boeing and Airbus, with protectionist tactics grinding up our own GA industry in pursuit of political point-scoring.
A European pilot who obtains a licence or rating in the United States will be required to undergo as-yet unspecified validation and checking on his return, and within two years will have to have converted the FAA document to the EASA equivalent, a process which will not be straightforward or inexpensive. In the case of the Instrument Rating, EASA plans to require the applicant to study for and pass all seven written exams and undergo flight training which will probably cost tens of thousands of euros even for pilots who've been flying safely for decades on FAA IRs. While it will still be legal to own an N-registered aircraft, the market in such aircraft will shrink, with some that have been modified to FAA STCs being rendered unsaleable in Europe. Those pilots who have American PPLs but cannot attain JAR Class II medical standards will also be adversely affected.
The plans, set out by EASA’s Deputy Head of Rulemaking Eric Sivel in a note to AOPA UK, confirm IAOPA’s fears that political chauvinism is taking precedence over safety and good sense. M Sivel says the proposals are stipulated in the Basic Regulation which covers everything EASA does. However, in talks with EC Transport Commissioner Daniel Calleja and others over the past five years IAOPA has been given to understand they could be flexed at the Implementing Rule stage. In its response to EASA’s consultation on the implementation of its Flight Crew Licensing proposals IAOPA pointed out that if a state has issued a licence and a medical in accordance with ICAO standards, other states should accept it without adding onerous requirements. Now, however, we are being told it is set in stone.
The end result will be that if EASA gets its way, going to America for a PPL will be pointless; but how many of those who were contemplating it will now get EASA licenses instead? Of the FAA licence and IR holders now in Europe, how many will pay the money and take the time to covert, and how many will simply walk away? And at the end of it all, what will have been gained?

IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson is meeting IAOPA’s lawyers in Brussels next week to discuss options.

NuName 1st Oct 2010 09:51

As far as I know you have to have a FAA licence to fly an "N" reg aircraft, so unless this changes so that EASA licenced pilots are accepted by the FAA to fly "N" reg aircraft, what exactly will change?

Pace 1st Oct 2010 12:54

NuName

There has been a long thread on this in the private pilots forum.

It is not a question of EASA Licences being accepted on N reg aircraft. It is the discriminatory move by EASA to demand that FAA licenced pilots resident in Europe but flying FAA reg aircraft or rather third country aircraft hold worthless licences in a mirror form to fly such aircraft in Europe.

They might as well demand you hold a marine boat handling certificate it has as much relevance to an N reg aircraft.

Having failed to stop N reg in over 20 years they are now looking for a back door way of doing so through some legal loophole of their own which as in previous attempts will hopefully fail.

Pace

flynowpaylater 1st Oct 2010 13:36

Hi Pace,
This doesn't really concern me either way, just interested.
If I lived in the US, with my G reg King Air, and my JAR licence and IR., can I happily fly around the US? Surely this is the same in reverse?

(not sure why I would want to do this though :})

Pace 1st Oct 2010 14:06

I dont know why you would want to either??? :rolleyes:

Instead of making flying attractive in Europe thus negating any desire for anyone to operate N reg good old EASA trundle on down their big brother state attitude of regulate and restrict.
Oh well hey ho we will all be confined to people carrier airlines at this rate.

Pace

Check 6 1st Oct 2010 17:16

Would changing from N registration to M registration be a viable solution?

Aerial Chauffeur 1st Oct 2010 21:40

So far as I understand it, the 'M' register is regarded as 'foreign' in just the same way that the 'N' reg is.

Doesn't directly affect me but I am still annoyed that some daft motherf*ckers in Brussels want to 'fix' something in Europe that really isn't broken.

Private jet 2nd Oct 2010 01:50

Aerial Chauffeur is right. EASA is now blatantly advocating aviation "racism". They seem to be involking one of the ICAO founding principles that any state can, for any reason, prohibit flight in its sovereign airspace. This "catch all" clause was a prerequisite in order to get national states to sign up to ICAO in the first place and get the whole thing off the ground, so to speak. (Did not realise that EASA was a "state" though)....If the EU is so intent on keeping non EASA licensed pilots out of EU airspace maybe they should consider banning the lot...oh they cant do that can they? Also what about the thousands of African migrants streaming into Europe every week, i don't see much effort to curtail their activities.......No this is a politically motivated witch hunt, no more no less. Its all about power, control & revenue. However i am confident a solution will be reached. Don't negotiate with EASA, thats pointless. Go above them.

NuName 2nd Oct 2010 06:49

Same old crap, different day, there are very few pilots out there that have ICAO but non EASA licences that could not accomplish the neccassary to have a EASA ticket. All it requires is loads of money to the relevant authorities and training organisations, and that is what its really all about, SAFETY? Borrocks!

odemacon 2nd Oct 2010 07:51

EASA against "N" and FAA.
 
If EASA goes through with this "project" it will only result in creating news ways to go around it.

One has to understand that 30 years ago, it was easy for an E.U pilot to go to the US, get his pilot license and come back to, let's says, France, and obtain a validation of his US ticket in order to fly "F" reg aircraft. As simple as that! I have done it.

Back in 1981, an increasing number of pilots, attracted by the US$ rate and the pragmatism and very efficient FAA system did just that.

Under the growing pressure and excessive lobbying of the "local flight schools" and Airline pilots union wanting to keep "their airspace" for themselves, the DGCA (France) was the first to introduce a notion of "residence" for the validation of a pilot license.

To be clear, you're not residing in France, your US license is validated. You are residing in France, it is not! A clear move to stop French residents going to the US to get their licenses and fly in France on "F" aircraft when back.

Thirty years later, well if E.U did not want the FAA system, the FAA system came to the E.U! Just look at the number of "N" reg aircraft. It represents over 60% of the sales for all G.A manufacturers and 85% for small biz jets. Last year, in France 4 Private pilots took their EU IR, overs 200 took their FAA IR!

So, here we are again, rather than looking for a way to harmonize licenses the EASA agency is trying to compete with the FAA and impose it's way without really integrating what has already happen.

Does the EASA thinks that over 10000 FAA licenses holder pilots in Europe will stop flying or undergo the training and numerous exams syllabus required?

They would be grossly mistaking. These pilots and aircrafts owners will never go through the trouble of such an unnecessary and unadapted European way.

So what will these pilots do? They will just do what they have already started doing:
Finding an E.U state that will validate the FAA licenses under it's on prerogatives and allow the license holder to fly this E.U state aircraft. I have done it, with many others.

With a very heavy investment of 12 € I have visited the Civil Aviaiton in Monaco, 20 minutes from home and obtained not only a beautiful Monaco license validating my FAA IR but my flight instructor license as well, allowing me to fly and operate "3A" aircrafts anywhere in the world. No training, no flight test, no written test, NOTHING, just a big smile from the extremely pleasant staff in Monaco.

And another E.U state, which I will not reveal here, is now fully ready to offer complete validation of FAA licenses not only at a private level but at a commercial level as well, allowing the licenses holder to fly THEIR "reg" aircrafts anywhere in the world!

Thus, if the worse comes to the worse, then EASA will have just achieved and will witness the largest aircrafts registration transition from "N" registration to the "Registration" of the E.U state offering this new solution, with all the associated benefits.

And this is not all. Since we are taking about residence, we have already met with "out of the E.U" conuntry representatvie who have offered their full cooperation and did issue many "Carte de séjour" to pilots in order to confirm their residence out of the E.U, thus allowing them to continue to operate "N" reg aircrafts with their FAA Licenses anywhere in the world, including Europe.

On the side, how will the EASA deal with the numerous US airline pilots residing in Europe? I imagine my United Airline and Delta pilots friends living in Paris and been asked to undergo the EU ATPL training and exams before jumping back in their Boeing cockpit to fly home. What a joke!

Finally, EASA should be concerned about the FAA retaliation potential. Air France has now over 15 Airbus "N" registered and it would be so easy for the FAA to simply STOP foreign licenses validation and impose that any aircraft entering it's airspace be flown by a Pilot in command, holder of a true stand alone FAA license, with all required FAA ratings.

So"BRAVO" for the already huge amount of time and energy wasted in such an irrelevant tentative to exclude what should be recognized as the best, most efficient and safest aeronautical system in the word. The US/FAA system.

We will be following every EASA move with the hope that wiseness prevails.

Pilots interested should contact me privately by email.

Fly Safe! Be happy!

Olivier

HS125 2nd Oct 2010 08:54

Firstly ladies and gentlemen, I'm really pleased that we're keeping consensus of opinion on this.

As the holder of both an FAA and JAA licence, I suppose I have no particular axe to grind, It did however cost me in excess of £1,000 simply to renew my JAA MEP/IR this week which is the tip of the iceberg in terms of EASA land costs.

The previous posts are all correct in terms of the fact this will simply serve as cash cow for the authorities and penalise us as an industry needlessly in order to prop-up another government job-creation scheme (Quango). I believe we're meant to be having a cull of Quangos in the UK at the moment, there is some ammunition for a start.

Jeff

moonym20 2nd Oct 2010 10:07

It may not be a concern to those who are fortunate enough to hold both FAA and JAA licenses. However, there are a number of us on here (myself included) who, for various reasons only hold FAA tickets to earn a living flying.

It's a great worry to me, I've worked hard to earn all my FAA certificates and worked even harder to make some form of a living with these. Does this mean if EASA do bully this ludicrous legislation through that those of us who can only hold FAA commercial certificates are going to loose our jobs and right to earn a living?
Given the current economic climate and trend, where will some of us find the money to fund a FAA --> JAA conversion?

Say an individual for one reason or another can't obtain a Class 1 Medical in order to get a JAA CPL... what happens to them?

:sad:

MidlandDeltic 2nd Oct 2010 10:21

Non flyer here (but looking to start at some point in the future), so a couple of questions if I may - not intended to antagonise, but to learn.

As a resident of Ireland, why would I get an FAA licence in the first place, rather than an Irish / EU one? Why also would I wish my aircraft to be N registered rather than in my own country?

To take a parallel. I came to Ireland a few years ago. I brought my car with me from my home country (UK). I had to register it on the day of arrival as I was intending to stay permenantly. I also had a limited time to exchange my driving licence for an Irish one.

There may be a reason for aviation being different, but it seems to me that an N registered aircraft permenantly based in the EU or elsewhere cannot be under anything other than paper supervision, which could allow less than honest owners (not that I am in any way suggesting anyone here comes into that category) can be "liberal" in their interpretation of the rules.

As I said, not trying to upset anyone, but am curiuos as to why the situation arises.

Regards

MD

Pilocol 2nd Oct 2010 11:07

FAA/JAA and the p*ssing contest ...
 
Pace says: EASA has finally shown its hand on the issue of N-registered aircraft based in Europe, and the news is bad. The Agency intends to make it illegal for pilots domiciled in Europe to fly perrmanently in Europe on American licenses.
So ... according to EASA it will become illigal to be BASED in EUROPE Bothe plane and crew) and FLY a "N" registered Aircraft with an FAA ticket ...

At least this is what I understand ...

No mention on "N" registered that come in and out or the ones that are based in Europe but the crews are not !!! ... way too many holes for this one to leak through ...
I honestly don't think this is going to float ...:=

MidlanDeltic ... Cars and planes total different issue ... you can fly a "X" registered plane anywhere in the world as long as you have a "X" country license ... bit different with a car ...

Keep it safe :ok:

MidlandDeltic 2nd Oct 2010 12:03

Quote :"MidlanDeltic ... Cars and planes total different issue ... you can fly a "X" registered plane anywhere in the world as long as you have a "X" country license ... bit different with a car ... "

Sorry Pilocol, that doesn't answer the question. I can take my car to other countries temporarily and drive on my licence (or on an international permit - easily obtainable) I may live on an island, but we do have ferries you know...... I accept that temporarily you can with an aircraft.

My questions related to permanent basing and residence, and why someone would set out to acquire a licence and aircraft from a country other than their own. Reading back, it is alluded in one post that FAA medical requirements may be lower / different to those of EASA - is that a valid reason to allow the situation to occur - given your "Keep it safe" comment? Again, not trying to be antagonistic, but trying to understand.

Best regards

MD

NuName 2nd Oct 2010 12:43

MidlandDeltic
 
Certain registrations are more user friendly than others. If you need crew for a VP or M reg aircraft you can easily get any ICAO licence validated. The cost of gaining a FAA licence is much less than the equivalent EASA one, and much quicker as well. As the very nature of aircraft is to travel, and mostly overseas, where the aircraft is parked for most of the time should be irrelevant. There is no demonstrated safety issue here, only a vested interest in money on behalf of the European aviation and training organisations.

Shell Management 2nd Oct 2010 14:36

Well said midlanddeltic.

IO540 2nd Oct 2010 16:22


So far as I understand it, the 'M' register is regarded as 'foreign' in just the same way that the 'N' reg is.

Doesn't directly affect me but I am still annoyed that some daft motherf*ckers in Brussels want to 'fix' something in Europe that really isn't broken.
AIUI, and this is only one interpretation of proposals which are not law yet and are likely to change anyway under the furious lobbying going on in Brussels now, is that M-reg would be OK if the operator is actually based in the IOM. But merely registered in the IOM and being based in say the UK would be a problem. The proposals catch onto operator (not pilot, or owner) residence.

You can register anything 5700kg+ in the IOM. Only below 5700 do you have to live there (loosely speaking; they have been past work-arounds like having an IOM company). The vast majority of M-regs are merely registered there.

So, in the EASA-protection sense, M-reg is no better than Cayman, Aruba, USA, etc.

However, as the proposals stand, I am sure enteprising brains will quickly establish "operator" companies based outside the EU (Jersey, IOM, Croatia, etc). It's all EU bollox... drafted by committees driven by politics of envy and various axe grinding.

Spread the word as much as you can, as high up in politics (and the generally well politically connected bizjet community) as possible, and with a bit of luck this stupidity will be nipped.

HS125 5th Oct 2010 14:13

Latest Received from IAOPA
 
IAOPA presses the EC to delay EASA's N-register attack

EASA’s eleventh-hour attempt to bounce the industry into accepting disastrous regulations aimed at killing off the N-register in Europe have shocked the aviation world and led to frantic last-minute moves to stop the Agency bulldozing new rules through the European Commission.
When the Agency finally showed its hand on the N-register it was through proposals on Flight Crew Licensing which will make it impossible for European citizens to fly in Europe on American licences, render worthless the FAA Instrument Rating and blow the bottom out of the market in N-registered aircraft. If they are adopted, the plans will force thousands of pilots to undertake new training courses costing millions of euros and slide the already-depressed used aircraft market into the mire. The safety benefit will be zero.

After years of discussion, the details became clear just two weeks before the EC was due to make a final decision on EASA’s proposals. IAOPA is asking the Commission to set the issue aside to allow time for its impact to be properly assessed.

The plans fly in the face of every assurance given by EASA’s principals that while they wanted European pilots to fly on European registers, they would properly address the reasons why they did not. EASA’s Executive Director Patrick Goudou promised in 2005: “We will ensure there are no special advantages to being on the N-register.” He has not kept his side of the bargain. Few of the compelling reasons why European pilots are driven into the arms of the FAA have been addressed, and those that have been looked at have been skimmed over in a desultory and unsatisfactory way.
EASA’s claimed motivation for attacking the N-register is safety, but that is a smoke-screen for political chauvinism. Aviation is a trade battleground between Europe and America, and pilots and owners are caught between the trenches. There has never been any evidence, or even any credible claim, that the N-register is unsafe. With this move, EASA has gone far beyond its safety remit and stepped completely into the realms of political protectionism.

IAOPA-Europe met in Amsterdam at the weekend to plan a response. Delegates from 17 European countries debated emergency tactics, and Craig Spence, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for AOPA US, flew in from Washington. He left with a full understanding of the gravity and urgency of the matter.

AOPA UK’s Pam Campbell outlined the issue which, she said, had come as “something of a bombshell”. To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the country of register, would require an EASA licence and if applicable an EASA Instrument Rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on a non-European licence would be available from national aviation authorities, valid for one year. The pilot would have to apply to the authority of the nation in which he or she resided. There would be a test for the validation, and no repeat validation would be possible, although an extension would be granted for a maximum of one year if the pilot could prove that training to convert the licence or rating has been commenced.

The minimum requirements to convert a third country PPL would be to pass an examination in Air Law and Human Performance, a PPL Skills Test and a Class 2 medical. It would also be necessary to demonstrate English language proficiency, and to have a minimum of 100 hours. That would convert the licence to a PPL with an SEP rating. Higher qualifications would be granted subject to additional training at the discretion of the service provider. The holder of an FAA Instrument Rating would have to study for and sit seven theoretical knowledge exams, which are currently the greatest barrier to the IR for private pilots. EASA is tinkering with theoretical knowledge requirements but there will be few game-changing amendments. It is unclear whether there would be any credit for American training or hours flown.
Emmanuel Davidson of AOPA France said there were more than 10,000 European pilots holding FAA licences flying in Europe. “We have to bear in mind that if your American licence is made illegal and you have an N-registered plane, when you fly it on a European licence you will have to apply both European and FAA regulations, which would mean you can only fly in the country that has issued your licence. It will be illegal to fly, say, from France to Germany or England to Belgium. Those aircraft which have been modified to FAA STCs may not be able to go on the European register and will have to be sold, but to whom? A glut of aircraft will come onto the market, and the only place you’d be able to sell them would be America. There will be massive compensation claims against EASA and the EC.”

IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said this had been sprung on the industry at the eleventh minute of the eleventh hour, and that all assurances given by EASA and EC figures that the situation was not as dire as it seemed had proved valueless. “We are facing a firing squad which has its rifles cocked,” he said. “EASA has consulted on Part FCL, and in response to IAOPA’s specific comments on third country licences it responded with one word – ‘Noted.’ That is all. EASA sends its work as an opinion to the European Commission, which has a time frame in which to accept or reject, and the hearing for that is on the 13th and 14th October.”

IAOPA has already met with MEPs and European Commission figures and more meetings are scheduled with the aim of getting the Commission to allow more time to discuss the issue. “Our first objective is to get the EC wound up to ‘park’ the issue so the ramifications can be looked at,” Robinson said. “In the short time we have available, there is no other option. Then we have to work on how we modify the text to get a proper resolution.
“There is no guarantee that the EC will listen. They could say we’ve had our chance, but we can demonstrate that our comments simply haven’t been listened to. The regulatory impact of this will be enormous, and I believe they are poorly understood, even at EASA. I cannot believe they have done a proper Regulatory Impact Assessment on FCL. If they even begin to work out how many people would be driven out of aviation by this, EASA and the EC would recoil from it.”

There is little individual AOPA members can do at this late stage to influence events. Martin Robinson said: “If you feel strongly about this you can write to Mike Smethers, Chairman of the EASA Board of Management, at the CAA in Kingsway, with a copy to your local MEP. But time is so short that we can only take emergency measures at this stage."

IAOPA will keep members informed of progress as it happens.

Thomascl605 5th Oct 2010 21:51

Perhaps non eu countries will reciprocate and ban JAA licenced pilots from using their airspace. How is JAA safer ? where's the evidence ? How can you police this, will there be domicile Police ? :ugh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:22.


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