Should EASA be allowed to monopolise International licencing in Europe?
 

It was with a degree of shock that I read about the new rulings being ratified by some faceless wonders on Brussels....there has been rumours of somewthing like this happening for years, but now some Back room boys have finally got it all together, and are enforcing this legislation upon us. I am quite sure that many of us with JAA/EASA licences have in some way looked down from our lofty positions, having passed our ATP exams.....at the seemingly inferior FAA equivalent....and yes, flying in Europe does have its challenges, so a European Licence may be deemed necessary???....I think that the USA...or many other parts of the World have similar, or even more challenging weather and traffic conditions to us in Little old Europe....but it seems that in Brussels....they think otherwise.....and I, and many others, are about to become more Victims to this vast Socio / political experiment that is called the European Union.

I have been flying for 30 years, and have held a CAA ATPL and an FAA ATPL, currently have 9000 hours on type of the Corporate Jet that I fly. Many Corporate Jets are operated on the US "November" register, or on various smaller Registered Authorities for primarily Tax reasons of the owners.....so to fly these aircraft, we have to comply to this requirement. Over the years I have unfortunately not kept up with my European Licences, due to cost and availability of Sim instructors. Also a minor Health issue, now renders me unable to hold a JAA Class 1 Medical Cetificate, but I have no problem meeting the requirements of the FAA Class 1......now, thanks to some chinless wonders in the European Parliament, I now have two years to end my Career in Aviation, at the age of 50. The European Union is not even a signatory to ICAO regulations.....presumably, because it is not actually a Ratified State.....or am I missing something.....has the United States of Europe been born and I missed it????

Unless I now resign from my position, (held for 15 years) and seek a job elsewhere in the World, with other countries that are ICAO signatories, I will be facing a very bleak future indeed. Kids about to start University, and No Flight Crew Licence is not a place I had worked so hard to achieve...

Can anyone tell me just who, when, why and what, has allowed the so called European Aviation Safety Agency, to start controlling peoples livelihoods, without any form of discussion, no grounding on any element of safety issues, just a European, self satisfied, bureacratically driven, unilateral sense of delusionary grandeur.....

I am hoping that not only can I hear from other Flight Crew in the same position, but also from all Flightcrew, who will support their fellow Pilots, against this tyrannical decision from the EU.
4x4 is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

The simple answer to who, when, why and what is:

Who: The elected governments of the Member States of the European Union through the Council of Ministers and the Members of the European Parliament who are directly elected by the citizens of the Member States.

When: 20 February 2008

Why: the principal stated objective is to obtain and maintain a high uniform level of civil aviation safety in Europe.

What: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency.

While the EU is not a contracting state to the Chicago Convention all of its Member States are. It is not contrary to the Convention for contracting state to form regional groupings with common aviation legisaltion/requirement. Indeed I believe that it is something that ICAO encourage.

Well Cathar, I hope they pay YOU very well, as PR co-ordinator for EASA.....suggest that you take a bit of a look around other forums in PPRUNE...you may find that apart from derision at this new regulation...there are an awful lot of very intelligent people who, are prepared to say that this decision is not only unnecessary, but may well be unlawful on grounds of being discriminatory, and on grounds of current employment laws.....they want to make me unemployed....I will be seeing them in the European Court of Human Rights...

EASA has every right to regulate the aviation industry in Europe. I don't see anything wrong banning non EU licensed pilots from operating within the EU, you couldn't get away with it driving a car so why should you flying an airplane.

This is nothing new and has been in the making for years. You are about 5 years too late to complain about it, and have long missed the consultation period for your comments, no need to bolt the stable door now the horse is long gone.

Why don't you try to operate a G-reg in the US for a few years with UK crew and see how long you will get away with that one before the FAA comes knocking on your door.

Count your blessings for being able to operate by means of a loophole for so long. This is long overdue.

4x4 I simply answered your question factually. I was not expressing an opinion or pushing a pro EASA view, rather I was trying to show that this is not "new rulings being ratified by some faceless wonders on Brussels" or "Back room boys have finally got it all together, and are enforcing this legislation upon us". The legislation, whatever we might think about it, has gone through the full democratic process and has been endorsed by our elected representatives.

I think you will find that possessing an International drivers licence, will allow you to drive pretty much anywhere you want....Europe and the US included...no Unilateral ban there....

There are a great number of Corporate Jets, operating in and out of the US, and many other countries beside....G-Reg or otherwise....and do not require Dual Licencing.....why has Europe taken this stance?....Safety Grounds?....I think that can be discounted straight away from a vast statistical study.

As for being involved in the consultative period.....I can only suggest that you try to write to your own MEP.....try Housing Tax, or obtaining a Taxidermy Certificate.....and you will see exactly how "Involved"....you will feel in this Great European Dream we are all supposedly entranced in.....

Please do not misunderstand my point of view...the Aircraft I fly is only based for a short period of the year in Europe.....so are we suggesting that for three months of the year we employ EASA Crew....and the other Nine months ICAO Crew....let us hope that this does not become an epidemic elsewhere....or as a backlash against Europe....as many Ex-pat European Pilots will be suffering for this.....If this was a widespread and dangerous situation, then I can see all grounds for it....but that is just not the case.

Yes, if you base your N-reg in the EU, then you will have to have EU licenses and abide by EU regulations. I don't see anything wrong with that. Why should you be allowed to circumvent the EU law by buying an N-reg airplane and basing it here. IF the owner is EU resident then even the aircraft will have to be EU registered or else it can't operate in the EU. I still don't see your point, you were lucky thus far operating via a loophole, that loophole is now closed, you base in the EU, you follow the EU rules, don't like it? Take your airplane somewhere else.

About time the EU stands up to dodgy tax and operator loopholes used by EU companies buying foreign registered and operated aircraft and by non EU operators basing non-EU airplanes in the EU.

I can see exactly where the EU is coming from, they want to regulate the aircraft based and operated within the EU and are no longer tolerating non EU registered aircraft based within its borders, what is wrong with that?

A UK resident can only operate in the UK on an international drivers license for 12 months, why should he be able to fly on a non EU flying license with no restrictions?

The EU wants to make sure they can enforce flying licenses and take any necessary actions against EU based operators and pilots, what is wrong with that? Why should you be exempt from EU regulations while you operate here as a based operator?

Up until now you guys have operated outside the rules and regulations here and I am glad the EU is putting a stop to that. Why shouldn't they, they are more then entitled to. They are closing a much abused loophole, about time. I am not alone in this opinion, most EU operators share this point of view and can't wait to end the numerous N-reg operators flying here without any oversight.

As to your question posted in your first post:

The FAA themselves in 91.703 state that US registered aircraft operated in foreign countries shall adhere to local regulations.

This is how it is going to be, EASA sets the rules, ICAO and the FAA have no issue with that.

Well lets hope that when you take your Challenger over to the States, they don't make you fly on an FAA licence.....hey. perhaps we could do a deal....you do the European bits, and I will do the ICAO bits...where they decide they don't want European Aircraft and Crews operating....stranger things have happened!!!!.....

You seem to have a gripe about Tax Dodging companies....if not...then as the Aircraft that I fly....and all the visitors that arrive in LHR and LGW every day which fly to standards and regulations that are accepted worldwide....you therefore must be intoning that unless you have an EASA licence...then you are Crap in the eyes of the European Authorities......my post was not about, Tax dodging companies or elicit company dealings....there is actually no particular advantage apart from VAT.......so are you saying that FAA Pilots are probably bigger miscreants....and therefore EASA wants a more accessible way to punish them?......

As one Brit Pilot to another....when you see your own National Aviation Authority being disassembled, and given little or no power, and when it is fairly impossible to make any impact upon the EU system as an individual....then it is a sad day when you realise that you are living in an Authoritarian Socialist State, where we now have little or no self determination.....I for one, find this Orwellian state of being....very sad.

cjboy, as to cars, you cannot drive a foreign car in the UK unlimited:

Driving in the UK with non-UK number plates : Directgov - Motoring

So there is no difference between flying a foreign aircraft or driving a foreign car. That's why I used the analogy.

Now back to flying. 4x4, I agree with you, I would have rather continued to deal with the CAA, however we joined the EU and part of that was EASA.

I don't see anything wrong with the US imposing similar rules regarding foreign aircraft operated within their territory.

EASA only wants a way to enforce each and every pilot and operator based in the EU. It is not saying that the FAA pilots/operators are less safe, it is just saying that each and every citizen/operator should fall under the same regulations and loopholes that allow them to skirt EU regs need to be closed.

The EU is very clear in its reasoning for the licensing requirement:


It is at no point saying anything about the difference, if any, in safety, it is just stating that if you reside here, or base your aircraft here, you should adhere to the local regs.

Hard to see how EASA can enforce this. Considering many pilots have flown non eu reg aircraft for years based in Europe, then the precedent has been set. I wouldn't worry about this, if EASA do try to somehow enforce this then a huge lawsuit will be hitting them where it hurts.

It's a bit like the emissions trading cr*p, EASA will probably fold within the next couple of years. Frankly, if they don't then I won't particularly wish to fly in Europe any more. It's hard enough already with all of you EASA bum chums !

I can't Understand witch is the problem, if the plane is N registered must be owned by an American Entity, is this enough to consider it "Based" in USA?
:hmm:

Being as a pilot is required to operate within the regulations of the airspace he is operating in, the argument that EASA will provide oversight where it previously did not exist is rubish. All authorities have always had the facility to require the state of registry of an aircraft to take action against any infringements by any foreign licenced pilot flying a foreign registered aircraft to mutual satisfaction. The only reason I can come up with as to why this is happening, is to apply protectionism to flight training organisations who charge enormous amounts to operate in the expensive European theatre and have to apply the nonsensical written exams to poor unfortunate pilots who could otherwise go to the USA and get it done quicker and cheaper with the same safety result. Oh! hang on a minute, I didn't come up with that did I, its a proven fact. Standing by for incoming :\

Perhaps some pro EASA tool can provide exact details as to how this will be enforced, I think it's highly unlikely to happen. If it does then it's a sad reflection of the Orwell state that we live in. I have really enjoyed my long, accident free career flying in Europe on non eu licences. With the huge increase of employing a Pilot with a European licence (sim cost etc) I doubt all of you EASA bottom feeders will enjoy such good terms and conditions.

Enforcement is fairly straightforward, if you are an EU national, you will need EASA licences if you operate an N-reg. simple rampchecking/ database checking can reinforce that. if you keep your N-reg in the EU for longer then a given amount of time you need to register it in the EU, again simple database/flightplan checking can reinforce that one.

You FAA guys can keep your head in the sand all you want and scream as loud as you can from the rooftops, this has been in the making for 5 years and it is not going away.

I am a big fan of this proposal, it will level the playing field, get rid of N-reg aircraft and will actually improve pay and conditions for EU licensed pilots as the option of cheaper N-reg crew and aircraft is regulated out of the market place. This proposal can only be good for the future of aviation in Europe.

Unemployed JAR/EASA licensed pilots will have a greater source of employment flying remaining N-reg aircraft once they get their FAA validation on their next simcheck. N-reg aircraft moving over to the M-reg and other EASA registers will be flown by JAR/EASA licensed pilots getting M-reg vailidation. (not sure what they are going to do with M-reg FAA validated pilots once this goes into effect)

This will be a boom for EASA maintenance providers/ avionics shops/ training providers/ aviation service companies etc. Most N-reg owners are not going to stop flying, they will have to abide by the new rules, this can only be good for aviation in Europe.

The funny things is, I don't see any JAR/EASA licensed pilots complaining here, or on the various other threads, I don't hear of any JAR/EASA operators complaining, I don't hear of any member state regulators complaining........

Over the years we business/corporate operators have been inundated with regulation/rules that never applied to N-reg operators, putting us at a disadvantage. Proper operators don't mind rules and regulations if they are administered fairly across our industry, this ruling will make our industry a better place to operate in.

There is a thread running here.

Yes this has been brewing for a few years, but what has caught people out is that EASA came up with a 2 year derogation (till April 2014) which offered breathing space for various conversion options to come along BUT, on the day (8/4/2012), it transpired that only a few EU countries had applied for the derogation.

Since the derogation is tied to the (vaguely speaking; the EASA reg is pretty vague which is how they like it) EU residence of the operator of the aircraft (the residence or citizenship of the pilot is irrelevant, unless he is the operator, which in the simple owner-pilot case is probably true) this means that most N-regs in the EU are now technically illegal to fly (or overfly) to most places in the EU, including within their own countries :ugh:

It's a huge mess.

Obviously there is no enforcement and nobody knows if/when there ever will be any.

The big question is why almost nobody has applied for the derogation.

Nearly all EU countries have for decades happily accomodated N-regs (and the FAA-based others like Caymans) on their soil, so it appears unlikely that they deliberately did not apply for the derogation in order to ground them. Much as the usual suspects (FTO owners, instructors, etc) like to believe this, it doesn't stack up for me, not least because most countries are full of foreign reg bizjets flying around their most influential people and politicians.

So I think it is a cockup, born out of

- EASA's hobby of generating 1000 page documents which obviously nobody (with a life) is going to read, and one needs an excellent (obscessive) understanding of aviation regulation to understand even parts of them. Even within each national CAA there will be only a few people who can understand this stuff.

- a broad hate of the EU and especially its current top level politics (Greek crisis, born partly out of heavy bribery of Greek politicians by German companies with Germany/France then wanting the money back, etc)

- an unwillingness to get involved in a complicated regulation (the "EU operator residence" has so many obvious work-arounds, for anybody above the level of a simple owner-pilot) for which there is absolutely no framework in traditional aviation, where a CAA ramp check looks for aircraft papers and pilot papers, simply...

I laugh at Cathar's mention of a "democratic process". See the euro parliament video links here. It's a sham, with sycophantic behaviour reminiscent of Nazi Germany and Hitler visiting Italy. The "voting" is then followed by under the table dealing by EASA heads to get MEP support, by making promises like a BASA with the USA which the mostly clue-less MEPs won't realise is empty.

My own concern is that while PROB99.9 there won't be any criminal enforcement for years, if ever, your insurance could be void. This is why I did the JAA IR conversion recently. The JAA/EASA papers are not even valid to fly my own plane (do not meet FAR 61.3 once I am outside the UK) so they are a purely an insurance policy which cost me a fair bit of time and about £10k to buy and which will cost me about £200/year to renew (IR renewal annually and a PPL renewal 2-yearly). I would recommend anybody on a foreign reg to ask their insurer what he thinks of this situation. My experience is that the standard dumb answer is "you need to be legal" but at the same time they will be very concerned at a large % of their high net worth (bizjet) client base being potentially uninsured with the insurer aware of it.

As always the courts will fill in the holes and the bureacrats will catch on and pass amendments to the act. At least in the UK FAA licensed pilots have untill 2014 to pass their JAR licenses.

Tis true, no complaints from existing JAR crews, not likely from the state regulators either. What I find interesting is another pilots glee at fellow Europeans, or Brits even, being put out of work and their families suffering the inevitable hardship. Don't forget, we are not talking about foreigners nicking our jobs, its our countrymen that were just earning a living using a different states licence. And before you start crowing, I have a FAA ATPL as well as a JAR CPL that will soon be EASA ATPL, its like the vultures circling at the moment. No, you can't have my job.

No glee on my part, for the record I have both FAA and JAR licenses. However you need to look at this from an industry wide point of view. Some EU citizens and even a few Brits decided not to follow local rules and regs and obtain a FAA certificate instead, why should we as EU citizens allow some of us a cheaper and faster alternative to enter our place of work? Why should we have to abide by EU regs and regulations while some owners/operators are put at an advantage by virtue of their registration? Will some FAA licensed pilots lose thier jobs? Yes, probably and I do feel for them, that was a choice they made when they decided not to follow local rules and regs and obtain a non-EU license instead, however there will be openings for those that decided to stay within the EU framework and that is a good thing.

We shouldn't mind regs and regulations, it keeps the dumbest safe, they are mostly designed for the lowest common denominator among us. There would be a lot less complaining about rules and regs if they are fairly applied across our industry and getting rid of a loophole will make that so.

I bet you many of the FAA licensed pilots will bite the bullet and obtain their JAR licenses, you know what? About time, I and 1,000's of others had to do it.

This rule will help more then it will hurt. Don't just think of the few pilots, think of the benefit to the industry as a whole, from aircraft sales companies, to maintenance providers, from FTO's to avionics shops. This will make us JAR/EASA cerified pilots, shops and outfits more valuable. We have had to live with JAR/EASA regulations for a long time, closing down a major loophole will make the continued exposure to those regs a lot more bearable.

No more owners trying to get a discount because N-reg operation is that much cheaper, no more maintenance providers having to discount their bill trying to get closer to N-reg operational cost, no more questioning why OPC/LPC are so expensive compared to N-reg operation, no more questioning of factoring when it rains and the N-reg is halfway to the destination, no more questions about VAT/import. No more questions about the cost and frequency of medicals, no more questions about the full training requirement of the guy in the right seat, no more questions about the difference in daily rate between a JAR and FAA pilot.....

This is a major step in the right direction to level the playing field.

You live and operate in Europe, you follow the local rules, period. No more hiding under a N-reg. Transparency and consistency for all.

The next time the muppets at EASA bring in a dodgy or weird ruling, it won't be so bad as they are now applied uniformly to all operators and not just the EASA ones, while the N-reg guys have a good laugh at us....

To cldrvr
 

I think your observations are a little flawed. You mention loopholes, and operating outside the regulations, this has never been the case. Whatever the registration of the aircraft or the pilots licence issuing state, the aircraft has always been required to operate within the regulations of the airspace it has been flown in. All pilots will need to have a licence of the state of registry, or at least a validation and this will not change. What may change is other states attitudes to EASA licences and the requirements they may see fit to reciprocate in a similar manner. We may find ourselves in the middle of a bun fight where, we, the pilots, find ourselves as cannon fodder. There was nothing wrong with what existed previously (now), if you got a job offer to fly a particular airplane, you needed the appropriate licence, safety was never an issue, this is all politics and it may well get ugly. Lets just hope not.

Get real.

Obviously you have never owned and maintained an aircraft :ugh:

There is little difference in scheduled maintenance, for Part 91, and everything above that is AOC anyway.

Nuname, when was the last time you had to justify the cost of putting an N-reg on the JAR registry to an owner, when he could have just as easily left it on the N-reg and saved himself a bundle? When was the last time you had to explain that a certain STC/mod was not allowed purely because of the letters on the tail? When was the last time you had to justify time limited components or an inspection interval on a particular aircraft purely because it was JAR registered?

Peter, I have personally owned several N-reg and JAR registered aircraft, and have been directly involved in the ownership of others on both registries and know very well the differences in operational costs.

cldrvr, more times than I care to remember, in fact I am involved in it as we speak. But, these are choices, choices that certain people wish to see removed. I am sure you have extensive experience in aviation but do not, because of that, assume that no one else has. If an owner decides to put an aircraft on a European register then that is their choice and I am sure they have good reasons for doing so and fully understand the problems and costs associated with doing it. You are a great advocate of EASA it seems, and you have that priviledge without a doubt, but, to state that its unfair for others to take advantage of a perfectly legal situation to operate a private aircraft more efficiently is sour grapes. And to state that you feel you are being laughed at because an aircraft departs when you are unable surely refers to a private operation versus an AOC operation. That situation would occur regardless of the registration/pilot licence, including G reg with JAR pilots.

Cldrvr your bottom feeding continues......
 

So, how will they enforce this ? Perhaps I'll just pretend I didn't hear of any of this when the time comes in 2014. I mean, I don't exactly read the 1000 page drivel written by the overpaid worthless idiots in Brussels. I will expect my FAA Certs to be transferred at no cost to an EASA one. If not, there will be an extremely large lawsuit for loss of earnings being filed. I will of course win, and will retire and get out of the cesspool of Europe.

Good luck Thomas taking on the EU:
Plenty have tried, none have succeeded. The EU is as the UK, it is called "Parliamentary Supremacy":

Two minutes on Google would have stopped you ranting and raving and instead focused on how to obtain a JAR/EASA license instead.

Hey Guys,

What's the fight about :)

First of all what type of operations are we talking about? Private or under AOC ? What do you meant under "Based" (It's not always the place where the a/c is parked most of the time)?

For me personally it's very easy:
1. If the aircraft is privately operated the pilot should be compliant with regulation of the state of the registry.
2. If the aircraft is operated commercialy (under AOC) the pilot should be compliant with the regulation of the state of issuance of AOC.

and it has nothing to do with where the aircraft is "based" .

Correct me if i'm wrong

You are missing the point of the proposed regulation Dein, if you are a "EU based" operator, your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses. They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft, but the days of a FAA certified pilot in the EU and US registered aircraft in the EU are numbered.

Who is fine tuning this and do you have any reference for that?

All we have is EASA FCL, as the law is written.

"They are still finetuning the wording of the based operator and what timeframe makes a visiting aircraft a based aircraft" - that will take long:) it's extremely difficult to determine the "base". there are planty of operators having their corporate jets "based" in 4-5 different locations, so what's the base for this operator ?

Re regulation for European operators (AOC holders) "your pilots have to have JAR/EASA licenses" - It's been like that for quite a while , one can get validation of his/her FAA license from local NAA (only once) for a period of 12 month, if i remember properly. after you have to get your JAR/EASA license.

From the horses' mouth:

Yes; most countries, including some EU ones, would validate an ICAO CPL/IR or ATPL to their local pilot papes, if you have a relationship with a commercial operator on their registry. This is normal.

It is private (e.g. FAA Part 91) ops which this is aimed at.

Like I said earlier, while this has been cooking for a few years (and yes the bizjet community has had its head buried in the sand... witness many threads here) what has caught everybody out is that most EU countries have not applied for the 2 year derogation.

It seems clear that EASA used the 2 year derogation, with their usual vague promise of a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA, as the under-the-table carrots to get enough MEP support for the crucial vote some months ago.

But EASA left the derogation on a per-country optional basis. Perhaps this was a clever ruse, knowing that most of the national CAAs have nobody there with the will to live long enough to read the EASA FCL tomes, let alone understand them. Or perhaps everybody underestimated the apathy at all levels around Europe, towards the EU and the crap coming out of Brussels.

This had been coming for years. What I don't understand is how people are shocked that it's happened. I gave always said that the pen pushers would pay lip service to protest and then do exactly as they pleased.

People have buried there head in the sand pure and simple.

I don't agree that it's correct but it was inevitable.

ever here of ramp checks? I know the FAA enjoy doing those.....

ignorance is no excuse, no matter what business you're in.

http://www.dorrie.de/images/smilies/laughing.gif

Those are explanatory notes, which with some googling (because you didn't bother to post links) can be found here.

But these are just EASA explanatory notes. There is no legal interpretation, and anyway EASA does not make law. They have to put everything before the EU parliament, and that have just finished with FCL.

So the current unworkable "operator residence" etc wording is here to stay - much as you wish otherwise :)

I highly doubt it will. All this will do is drive up the overall cost of aircraft ownership and operation, how on earth can that be a good thing?

The problem with all this EASA stuff as has been discussed over on Private Flying is that they have never really looked at why the whole question of N-reg ever became an issue at all. People saw it as a way to escape regulation because that regulation was costly and unnecessary. All this garbage about FTOs, Maintenance organisations etc that has been piled on the industry over the years drove people to keeping aircraft on the N-reg. EASA's approach from the outset was to just force everyone into the same straight jacket rather than addressing issues with EU regulations. Instead of demanding that everyone be held to the same ridiculous standards people should be looking at those standards in the first place.

As people quite rightly pointed out getting FAA licences was often done simply because they were needed to fly all these N-reg aircraft floating around in Europe. I've never understood this issue of people who did JAA licences holding a grudge against people who operate FAA; just because you have spent money on something that was ridiculously more expensive than an alternative does not mean that everyone should be forced to do the same. I hold both JAA and FAA multi-IRs and my view is that the whole JAR IR/ATPL thing should be rationalised so that it is cheaper and more accessible.

None of this local regulations stuff would matter if EASA were reasonable about the regulation of private/business flying, particularly the issue of foreign licence conversion. People are only up in arms about it because of the costs/hassle involved.

Ultimately yes EASA should be allowed to set standards for permanently based operators in the EU but they sure as hell could be making life easier for people in the transition.

Not quite - your SEP revalidation (assume this is what you mean by PPL renewal) will be absolutely free, assuming you fly 12 hours in the second year of validity. Can't help so easily on the IRR sadly...

Do you mean the IR renewal acts as a PPL renewal also? It ought to, for the price ;)

Dear Westwind,

You said about ramp checks and ignorance, lol ! You really haven't got a clue have you ? Same as Cldvr our domiciled pro EASA super bottom feeder who actually reads the endless tripe out of the bowels of Brussels.

Ok, let's have a ramp check then when this rubbish comes online in 2014. The law of precedent has been set for the previous god knows how many years of working in Europe absolutely fine on FAA Certs. The reason please for this change ? The CAA haven't written to me to tell me, 2014 is the first i'll know of it. it'll have to be damn good to make me shell out thousands on a pointless and time consuming conversion to fly the same aircraft.

No, this isn't acceptable to me at all. This is one law too many out of Brussels. I'll happily take on EASA over this, happy to chuck in a few grand at least in 2014 to have my say and fight for what is right and fair.

Now let's see, around two million in lost earnings over the rest of my working life, better get writing that cheque EASA.

cldrvr, you seen to have a massive chip on your shoulder pal, for why I just don't know...

I would actually love to step up to bat and throw my concerns into the ring but i'm keeping very busy on an FSI course for one of the jets I'm extremely lucky to fly (on my FAA ticket) for a living.

To the FAA guys I'm in a similar position to... Good Luck! :ok:

@cldrvr I don't know which planet you are living on but it's clearly different to mine........
I haven't found an EU based maintenance operator that is not dual qualified - their rates are exactly the same whatever the letters on your tail.
The import thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the letters on your tail and everything to do with the home base of the aircraft. Banning N reg aircraft will not make a shred of difference to that.
Far from being good for aviation, this can only be bad. Many owners use aircraft for their ease and convenience.....make them less easy and conveient and their utility comes into question. Every owner who decides that they can't be arsed or doesn't want to waste money for no good reason means jobs lost - pilots, engineers, sales etc.etc.etc. They won't all go to charter and may even remove themselves from the EU altogether - with even more loss of jobs/income.
This is not a war of ideals, it is business and the EU has proved, comprehensively and repeatedly, that it doesn't care if people make a living or not, or if they live or die in an aircraft. Their job should be safety, not points scoring, and encouraging business so that somebody's taxes pay their salaries. Other places are more welcoming and will be standing by to mop up the gravy from that famous train.