|
No rush on the manuals - you have until 2014 to become fully compliant. I'm leaving mine on the grounds that I may have decided to jack it all in before then.
|
FAA Certificated Pilots in Europe.
Gentlemen....many thanks for your responses to my posting, both supportive and non. It has made very interesting reading, and am quite sure that everyone who has expressed a passionate opinion, has done so from their own viewpoint and most likely feels totally justified.
I have been a little taken aback by some of the venom that was forthcoming, especially with regard to N Reg Pilots and Operators, from some, whom are probably still in their early years in this great Industry of ours....Yes Guys, the truth is, whether you want to get on your High Horse and act like a Trotskyist Trade Union Leader.....and demand that JAA/EASA is the only true way forward....the simple fact is....we do love Flying.....not for the Money.....I am saddened, when, with the potential loss of my Career....I can hear fellow Pilots commenting that the Demise of N Reg Aircraft in Europe will increase their own personal incomes.....I started flying at the age of 13....working as a Hangar Rat, 4 weekends work, got 1 hour in an Auster. That is why I started flying. Something I did not mention in my thread, was that I completed all the old CAA ATPL, but due to the positions I was offered over the years, I let it lapse....yes, De Facto.....we can, and have been as diligent as you....but life sometimes takes some different paths.....but the one thing I do recall, was that having completed "all those nasty CAA exams".....did I come away really that much better off....CAAFU's Initial IR was no different to my FAA Multi I/R....perhaps a little less Starchy maybe...but the flight standard....no different. Morse Code and Astro Nav.....need I say more. I for one, have never baited the CAA/JAA/EASA.....and I don't think that many of my Professional colleagues have either.....we just got on with our jobs and made a living, within the auspices of the Rules and regulations enacted within the ICAO accords......yes of course, we have all heard the NEWBIE and Wannabe, crowing about how much easier it appears to do an FAA course as opposed to the European equivalent.....but Easier?....less costly certainly.....but young men are a little stupid, and sometimes don't say the cleverest things. Having held both Licences, I see upsides and downsides to both....and in truth, perhaps we should all do both, as I believe that the blend of European Academia, and American Practicality produce a far better Pilot, and also if it enables younger Pilots to gain more hours at a cheaper price, then this is a good thing......as nothing, in my humble opinion....nothing...replaces experience. If we were being inundated with Dodgy Crews from Godonlyknowswhereistan, then I could understand some of the opinions expressed here, but this is not the case...this is the EU doing some FAA kicking, and just because the FAA is not going to submit to Petty Rulings, and Farcical regulations that are dream't up in an institution the likes of which we find in Brussels.... Should therE be any FAA N-reg drivers or owners out there who are in a similar position to myself, then please PM me, and we can talk further about this, and whether, as mentioned earlier in this thread, there is any remote possibility of bringing a Discriminatory case against the EU/EASA. |
Nice post 4x4
For my two cents, we pilots are all better off if we can fly everything, everywhere. To continue this logic of building walls, the EU pilots would be the ones getting screwed the most if the FAA came up with these nonsense regs or went further and said only US citizens could get FAA licenses or fly N reg aircraft. |
Good post 4x4 :ok:
There has never been any kind of safety case for an anti N-reg action, and not even EASA pretends there is any such. The justification given by the EASA gravy train riders, when asked face to face, tends to be "we are Europeans and we must have European rules, not American rules". That kind of reply is self evidently stupid but they are in power whereas you are not :) It's like you telling your 2 year old kid that he can't have the ice cream because Mum did not let you buy the car you wanted. It works because you have all the power and he has none, but it leaves the same kind of bad taste in the mouth. Regulators aside, the people who are in favour of these Euro rules are usually doing it for straight financial reasons. Maintenance shops like N-regs because they charge the G-reg price but they don't have to change (Part 91 ops) some lifed parts and they get you to pay the A&P/IA separately to get the Annual signed off :E |
Have followed this thread with interest. I personally feel that EASA is just JAR all over again; yet again a massive upheaval for the industry creating gross amounts of totally unnecissary paperwork and eye-watering costs that drive pilots out of careers/hobbies and squeezes already pressed operators even harder, all for no safety benefit whatsoever (which is what JAR/EASA has supposedly been all about, ironically) and what seems to be nothing more that a thinly-veiled political agenda of empire-building.
The reason that many have went down the FAA route quite simply is down to much more reasonable costs for training, licensing, maintenance and less paperwork. The hard fact is that the FAA route for both pilots and operators is a much friendlier, easier, cheaper and far less hostile route than JAR/EASA. EASA obviously don't like this but it is they who created the "problem" of European pilots/operators being licensed outside the holy land of the United States of Europe. I say "problem" in quotation marks as it is only regarded as a "problem" by the twisted bereaucrats running the EASA project. Personally I see no problem in pilots/operators being foreign licensed as long as said licensing is ICAO compliant. As I'm sure most others do. However we have this situation where this political project and the people behind it harbour this childish grudge against anyone freeing themselves from their expensive, politically motivated, overburdened regulatory system. I find it bizarre that EASA has seemingly been given free reign to ride roughshod over pilots and operators to such a shocking extent. But there again it is a political agenda, and such ways seems to be the way of things in Europe these days... Just my thoughts Smithy |
Captain Smithy....could not have said it better....you are a Wordsmith, Sir. :ok:
|
To continue this logic of building walls, the EU pilots would be the ones getting screwed the most if the FAA came up with these nonsense regs or went further and said only US citizens could get FAA licenses or fly N reg aircraft. I'm an American citizen, living in Europe for over 40 yrs now and follow the rules where I live! I could "own" a N-reg aircraft if I wanted, but I couldn't own a D-reg. It's the law, big deal. I accept it. Much has been said on this subject already but I will only add that it's perfectly normal for a country to want the aircraft flying in their airspace to confer to their rules. The whole thing is about where the aircraft "operator" is based and where the aircraft is stationed. When I first arrived in Germany years ago, I had only one year to change my car drivers licence to a German one. So, why SHOULDN'T that be required of aircraft as well? Even the FAA says that when flying/operating with N-regs in other countries you are to adhere to the rules of that country (sorry, can't find the §§ at the moment, but it's in the FAR'S). I think some of you are really going overboard with your attitude. All walks of life have restrictions, rules, laws, etc. and sometimes we just must adhere to them. With the EASA rules we all were given the opportunity to comment and give our 2-cents worth to the process, a very unusual deal! If you didn't take advantage of it, then shut up! If you didn't know about.... well, all the flying press was full of info over the past years and the already existing organisations did their best to act in all of our interests. But, there were 27 countries to put under one system... everyone wanting THEIR rules in the law. NOT an easy task (and no, I am not with EASA! I've just followed the process). You win some, you lose some.... that's life! So, I had to finally get that all out of my system.... sorry 'bout that folks. :p |
What I am a bit confused with, if one had a CAA ATPL which is lapsed, how long does it then take, for you to reinstate it without the need for all the exams flight tests etc. Surely your not back to the beginning again are you ?
|
It goes on yoru IR if you have held one within 7 years is realtively easy to get things current. Outside that you have to do the exams again and training as required etc.
|
Just to clarify, if the IR has expired by more than 7 years you will need to do just the IR exams again (not all of the ATPL exams) and complete mandatory refresher training, which, according to the Regulation, means doing the initial IR course again.
To get an EASA ATPL, you must also have a minimum of 500 hours multi-pilot time and (I believe) a valid MPA type rating. There are still a significant number of people holding CAA national ATPLs who do not meet this requirement and will only be able to convert to an EASA CPL. For them, it will be necessary to pass all of the EASA ATPL theoretical knowledge examinations in order to get an ATPL back again. |
Hey Westwind,
If we're being honest here, I'll restate the obvious. What burns the American (and other non-EASA pilots) is that it takes a major effort for us to convert our license. It is NOT anything like getting a "German drivers license. To be "fair" all you EASA pilots should have to pass 14 exams of total bull**** before you can fly in the US. Many professions have these absurd hurdles that must me jumped over and through. The only reason is to restrict the "free trade" of professionals. FR |
as you must be an EU citizen to own an EU aircraft. but I couldn't own a D-reg I had only one year to change my car drivers licence to a German one. - road tax is a huge tax raising tool (aircraft over 2T IFR pay route charges which are collected according to the airspace you overfly, by Eurocontrol) - foreign reg cars avoid paying parking tickets, camera generated penalties, and (if you don't stop after an accident and leave the country before they find you) prosecution for any offence short of one that is extraditable (which basically means something like killing somebody) - whereas in aviation ICAO provides for international enforcement; in 2003 I busted a French TRA and the CAA went after me on behalf of the DGAC - the linkage between road tax databases and insurance databases and number plate databases is not international, so those checks would all fail, etc etc whereas in aviation the airport where you didn't pay the bills soon goes after you The only reason is to restrict the "free trade" of professionals. These people are only human. Same with ISO9000 and all the other scams which pervade business in the EU. All the people working in those fields have families to feed, etc. The other day I got a quote for a couple of little items. I replied with an email saying "please ship them, order number is XYZ". They would not accept that because their ISO9000 quality manager requires each customer to explicitly specify what he wants to buy :ugh: Large chunks of our society are now stuck in this s**t and aviation is no different; in fact aviation is brilliant because the "s-word" takes care of just about any objection. The "fault" lies at the top, for allowing these monsters to come into existence. No good blaming EASA. Blame those who set it up, and then didn't oversee it closely and allowed it to grow out of control. As regards safety, read the AF447 reports. If that plane was on the registry of the Peoples' Republic of Upper Volta, it would make sense. But because it is (was) F-reg, nobody could believe it and you got hundreds of pages on p p r u n e analysing why it happened. |
In a nutshell, the EASA certification process is archaic and expensive. You fix that and the bitchin' stops.
Bingo |
No its not, its just not what all the N reg drivers want to hear.
If you had from the beginning been in the system you would give a flying toss about the current changes in the system becuase it really doesn't effect you at all if you are already IR'd up. ATPL, two types IR, SEP, FI my life has not change in the slightest with the coming of EASA. And my training only cost 35k cpl/ir/mep/fi/mcc. |
Well you started all of this b*llocks about 14 exams, with no coherent argument, you just said 'do it' . As for your own personal evaluation I couldn't have written anything else better about you myself. I'll give you this, you are very insightful into your own personality.
|
No I didn't it was you lot bitching that you couldn't be arsed doing them. Because they were so so hard and difficult.
The fact is that brickies and the like with no secondary education passes managed to do them all the time. There are thousands of pilots a year pass these exams with no great stress. Stop bloody moaning and get them done. And stop doing this pish "I know you are I said you are but what am I" bollocks. You don't have a clue how I run my cockpit or for that matter what I am like as an instructor or line trainer. |
would you "children" stop fighting and get back to flying! The rules are the way they are and we had years of time to comment and get ourselves involved in the process. If you didn't take part, then tough. And every country has the right to make rules for its airspace and if all 27 (or whatever the number) of EASA member countries adopt these new regs, then that's the way it is. :eek:
Oh, and part of the problem, as I've read here somewhere, is on the FAA side, not only the EASA. And don't forget Part-FCL pilots... when you get your new EASA licenc, it will probably have a new number (again!) and you will have to redo the FAA validation..... |
WestWind1950 would like the children to stop fighting, I wonder who forces him, or her, to read this thread anyway. I don't like the Weaver thread, so guess what, I don't read it.
There are two very different camps of pilots who are affected by the rule changes being discussed here, those who fly for pleasure and those who earn their living flying foreign registered aircraft. I think all would agree that to be able to fly the foreign aircraft the appropriate licence had to be obtained by the individuals, clearly the aircraft existed first and the employment opportunity came along thearafter. This actually happened to me whilst living in Turkey with 90 hours on a UK PPL. I dutifully went to the states, got myself a CPL/IR, CFII/MEI and returned to Turkey only to be told that they would not issue a work permit for that occupation. I returned to the UK and was offered a job on a "N" registered aircraft, no substitue for a bit of luck. My other bit of luck was that I then went down the UK CPL route and that might well be my salvation in the future. I really feel for the guy's who could loose their livelihood due to the new reg's. IMHO the purpose of this thread is to publicly discuss the merits of introducing rule changes that will have no significance on safety. The only changes being pilots, ab initio or otherwise, being locked into a training scenario that is inefficient and expensive with some previous choices removed. The only effect all this is going to have will be European FTO's being able to operate without the competition of oversea's FTO's and the various European airspace administrations will enjoy more revenue. Increased safety, NO. Increased jobs, NO. Increased expense, YES. |
Its never been about safety, its always been about control over the aircraft and crew based in a country.
With the success vconverstions of owners and pilots going FAA the NAA's were loosing control over large percentages of the fleets perm based in thier countries and also the pilot groups. Can nobody see why they can't allow that to continue? |
An interesting perspective. No safety considerations, just control. Sounds very sinister.
|
Of Course EASA has a right to control its airspace and the aircraft and pilots in it but that is NOT the argument.
If N reg was a fairly new practice which EASA had discovered and was trying to plug fair dues. In certainly UK law established legal practice becomes protected in law itself. If you pinch a piece of field and extend your garden into it after a period of time as a garden it becomes a garden in law not a field and so on. N Reg has without any doubt become established practice in Europe being domiciled here for longer than the EU has been in existence. Over all those many many years people have found work around N reg in Europe others have purchased aircraft and licences and all within perfect law and rights. EASA have moral obligations to those people and their livelihoods as European Citizens as well as to insure that anything EASA now does makes as little damage to those people in cost of money, Time, inconvenience and most certainly NOT at the cost of someones job. As far as EU law goes if EASA bring in any regulations which will remove my rights for work they are breaking existing protection laws. Its no good saying take six months off my work would no longer exist. Maybe I am not a good home studier and need to be in a full time study course. Why should such a conversion cost me money??? If I am a pilot with only a few years to retirement how will I claw those costs back in the time I have left compared to a young pilot? That lot is just a taste and EASA know they have problems so lets see what happens Pace |
Yes but that is the fundemental reason why they have brought the changes in.
And why it doesn't matter what the arguments etc are brought forward about safety etc they won't stop until they do return control to the local NAA for locally based aircraft and pilots. And now that there system and philosophy have been publically slagged off and personal insults dealt out for the people involved, they will be even more determind to finally stop the practise or at least make it very difficult and more expensive than just going local anyway. Apart from anything else they won't want a rerun of the last 2 years. So the cogs are turning and the political games are being played to eventually get things into a corner. They really don't care about jobs going etc and being taken to court, all they have to do is string it out for a few years. Even if they do loose the tax payers stump up the dosh and they have got what they wanted anyway. PAce there argument will be is they haven't removed your ability to work on N reg aircraft. You can still work anywhere in the world. The fact is that if you are successfull blocking this it will mean that they will loose control over virtually all private aircraft in the EU. All that will be left will be the public transport and AOC machines. No private pilots because you can start commercial training using an ICAO ppl. There have been loads of regulation changes in the UK which have meant people have had to requalify and or get additional licenses. The ones the spring to mind are the gas regulations which meant the all the plumbers that had been working for years had to get Corgi qualified . The Sparkys went through the same thing a few years ago just so they could fit a plug in a kitchen or other wet area. Finacial advisors also went through the same process. Its hardly unique that long standing industry's have been turned on there heads and everyone had to gain further qualifications before being allowed to do what they had been doing for years in the UK. |
NuName
I really feel for the guy's who could loose their livelihood due to the new reg's. Oh, and I read here because I find the discussion quite entertaining actually... :E Pace N Reg has without any doubt become established practice in Europe being domiciled here for longer than the EU has been in existence. Over all those many many years people have found work around N reg in Europe others have purchased aircraft and licences and all within perfect law and rights. And I remember the FAA, back in the 1980's and 90's trying to "force" N-reg owners to have the aircraft spend maximum 6 months outside of the USA! The FAA wanted that, not the European's. Who knows, perhaps it hit the books yet has been overlooked all these years. |
I think they can westwind. Keep a N reg in Russia etc. Even if it was illegal the type of persons that own said hardware over there isn't looked at to often.
Its the same in the Middle East as well. Shiek ma bob can keep a N reg for as long as he likes. Mear mortals would have to go local after 6 months. Not that its really an issue because the whole reason for having these machines down there is to escape the bloody place so they tend to move around alot. |
Whilst making the argument for EASA I hope you all remember that any foreign licence holder flying a foreign registered aircraft in any airspace, including that of EASA land, is required to obey the regulations of the: country of registration, country of licence issue and the airspace the aircraft is being flown in and apply the most restrictive. Therefore, full control is available to all national airspace in all countries of the world. This has always been the case and always will be. Any incidents or violations have always been rigorously followed up with appropriate action.
|
Any incidents or violations have always been rigorously followed up with appropriate action. All the local authority can do is send a letter to the other authority if they don't reply they can only hope they can pick the pilot up on another visit. The idea that the US, China, Russia and a raft of other countrys would deport anyone to the EU to face action about infringments is quite frankly in the realms of cloud cockoo land. Try and find a case when its happened. We arn't actually making the argument for EASA we are making the argument that local aircraft and local pilots are under the oversight of the Local NAA. Most I would suspect would agree that EASA is a monumental screw up and isn't going to do the EU aviation industry any good at all. In fact the conclusion of getting the N reg issue sort once and for all might actually be the thing that keeping it together. Most countrys in the EU have been trying to stop it for years and they have been the nearest to succeeding yet. Doesn't change the fact though that I agree with the policy of local aircraft and local pilots are under the oversight of the Local NAA. That aircraft resident in a country and flown by the resident pilots should have to jump through the same hoops as everyone else. None of the loophole of we have payed a bloke in Delware to own the aircraft in trust on our behalf and you can stick your rules up your arse cause we don't like them. |
mad_jock, you have my attention now, I obviously need educating and you would seem to be the best guy to do it.
Can you explain to me just what the "Delaware loophole" is, and what advantages can be had, maybe I'm missing out on something. Especially as I fly the "M". I don't know what experiences you quote from but I have witnessed a FAA licenced pilot have his ticket suspended for a year for a violation incurred in the Middle East. To find a pilot of a particular flight is the easiest thing in the world, were it not, the international freedoms we enjoy would simply not exist. Deportation is a bit extreme, what kind of violation did you have in mind for this? Licence suspension or revoked would seem to work well enough in most cases. Aviation by its very nature is an international activity, there will always be foreign aircraft with foreign pilots around, to make some arbitrary reg's about what constitutes being based or resident in Europe is a load of baloney and everyone knows it. Freedom means less regulation not more. |
The N reg arn't allowed to be owned by someone thats not resident in the US. So they pay a company to hold the plane in trust on there behalf. The US company is allowed to own the aircraft in the US.
They wouldn't be allowed to own it under their own name if resident in the EU. So they use the loophole to be able to have the N reg. I have never heard of a UK pilot ever getting there licnese suspended there have been cases of folk loosing medicals for metal health reasosns. There have also been cases when folk have agreed to hand in there licenses to reduce the penalties in court but I have never heard of anyones license being suspend or removed. And in all honest in some cases it is deserved. Maybe the slightly crazy vet Maurise Kirk i think his name is, has had his license suspended but thats the only one I can think might have. In europe they they tend to fine the **** out of you or the company for any breaches locally and keep the aircraft until its all sorted out. You have to be taken to court and be sentenced for any penalties apply. I belive the FAA can decide punishments etc without having the case go before a legal type. The airbus at Brum that flew for 10 miles at NPA mins then eventually landed after using the wrong DME is an example. Crew legged it on the next flight out and it sat there for weeks with the AAIB investigating. |
Oh, I see, I already knew this but when I hear about "loopholes" I always think there is some advantage to be had. Obviously in this case there is not, its simply what is necessary to have a "N" reg aircraft if you are not a U.S. citizen. Of course this is available to anyone who wishes it, right?
As far as the control subject goes, nothing will get fixed because, quite simlpy, nothing is broken. |
Mad jock
You really are missing the point ! N reg is a very long and established legal practice in Europe where many have invested a lot of time and money, There is a whole industry grown around them. In. Free society it is normal to beat the competition by offering something better, cheaper and more attractive. EASA could have done that ? But no they use the old Russia tactics of beating and cheating people into submission. EASA have not only a legal but moral obligation if they now want to change things to do so which is at least is minimally damaging in time and money to those involved. Grandfather rights. Difference exam etc ! There is no sensible or practical reason why I as a N reg Captain should have to sits six months of ground studies to do what I already do! May I add exams full of irrelevant rubbish. Differences exam maybe ( air law) You are wrong ! If I take six months off on ground studied do you think my job would still be there when I came back? I am sorry but EASA are fully aware that they are on very sticky wickets with EU law if it goes to court! I can assure you it will if the bi lateral comes to nothing which I am equally assured it won't ! Pace |
So if my boss decides to spend the summer in his European home, will all of his crew flying a nationally registered aircraft be required to have JAA/EASA licence?
What is the EASA definition of your base? Mutt |
If I take six months off on ground studied do you think my job would still be there when I came back? Pace, with all due respect you have fallen for the hype about how difficult people think the exams are. For an experienced ATP they are just not that difficult. |
EASA have not only a legal but moral obligation if they now want to change things to do so which is at least is minimally damaging in time and money to those involved. Now, what EASA proposes / has decided and the way to take influence is a different matter, anyone that does work for a living and tells me he has been able to really check what has been proposed and then comment and - most important - that his input had a real impact: hats off. Last but not least: it did not matter that probably most of us think that the regulation is a total overkill. |
His Dudeness
But of course lets please not forget That this duel licensing will never happen! As stated by EASA it is NOT their wish. Their wish is a Bi Lateral on FCL with the USA. Most of us doubted those EASA claims but they appear to be true. We will have to await the outcome of the high powered meeting this june to see where this is all heading. Pace |
Let's see what the FAA has to say to abondoning the 6/6 in favour of annual proficiency checks which is part of the EASA requirement for the bi lateral.
The US and Canada were able to achieve an agreement as the have similar training regimes and similar currency requirements. I personally think you are hanging your hat on the wrong peg pace, but please feel free to throw it back at me later if I am proved wrong. I just don't think there is enough common ground to allow a simple 1-1 exchange. |
I would imagine Mutt that the fact you have a work permit for the country of registration will be enough.
|
Mad Jock, I thought that it was the residence of the operator and not the pilot? So my question still stands, if the operator moves to Europe for the summer, has he got to use EASA licensed pilots?
Mutt..... (I already hold a JAR licence for aircraft that Im flying, so not really affected by this, but curious) |
Also consider this
If I fly an M reg aircraft, I lose my EASA medical but have a validation for the M reg aircraft on my FAA ATP & Medical. I've done my 14 exams, I know the local procedures. Will I be legal |
It depends how you define operators residence.
I don't think they have even defined by what an operator is yet. And it might take a couple of test cases to sort it out. They haven't started down that road yet. And its one of the things I suspect that people are now trying to find ways of getting there aircraft deemed resident in a none EU country. I would have thought that having a principle who is a national of a country outside the EU and has pilots flying his aircraft which have work permits for that country will push the likely hood of it being none resident. |
It will be interesting to see how this works out.
Although they are not a corporate aviation operator, I am curious about operators such as UPS Europe who appear to have US registered B757 aircraft flown by US crews based in Europe. Do they rotate the aircraft / crew in order to avoid having them classed as "based in Europe"? Mutt |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.