More of the EASA mess, confusion and ineptitude!
 

From Fly Corporate, another interesting article on the Part NCC debacle!

(sorry, can't get link to paste properly)


05/01/2015

In summer 2016, all non-commercial operators of complex aircraft having their principal place of business or residence in EASA Member States will have to comply with the European regulation called Part-NCC. As raised in an article previously published by FlyCorporate entitled “New EU Part-NCC: a revolution riddled with uncertainty”, many aircraft owners will need to get organized (or re-organized) in order to face their new operational obligations. Meyer Avocats Attorney Philippe Renz discusses.

In fact, numerous owners have already started to assess whether they should continue to manage their own flight operations or instead entrust third parties with this task. Numerous AOC holders and other aviation professionals are likewise in the course of evaluating how they might take such responsibility on themselves.

In order to determine the best possible option, many owners and operators have already turned to their National Aviation Authority (NAA) to raise practical and legal issues that the latter have generally not been able to answer so far. Although this situation is not surprising given the uncertainties related to Part-NCC, these issues must be clarified as soon as possible to prevent the industry from suffering damages in the coming months.

What operational structure to set up?

As mentioned in the previous article, the European Union (EU) does not intend to implement the oversight coordination mechanism provided by the ICAO regulation between the State of Registry (SoR) and the State of the Operator (SoO). In doing so, the EU accepts that aircraft registered in third countries and their operators will be submitted to two parallel oversight systems independent from each other. This already raises a number of issues.

First, operators already required by their SoR to operate with an Operations Manual (OM) now wonder whether the provisions of the EU regulation could be inserted into their current OM and, should this not be possible, how their new EASA OM should be detailed. Indeed, the Acceptable Means of Compliance and the Guidance Material provided by the EU legislation are very succinct and offer little help. Not many NAAs are able to answer these questions today and those who can have little in common on recommendation, ranging from a rough OM with just a few pages to an OM worthy of a commercial operator.

The same uncertainty relates to the complexity of operators (not of the aircraft, but of the operator’s activity), which to a great extent is left to the discretion of each NAA. This issue is significant, in particular for small operators, since the decision of the NAA as to whether an operator is complex or not may have an expensive impact on its Safety Management System. Unfortunately, today most NAAs do not know where they will draw the line between a complex and a non-complex operator.

And what about all operators already IS-BAO certified? Will their certification be recognized in Europe? If so, to what extent?

Here too, in the absence of clearer guidelines from the EU and answers from the NAAs, the owners do not have all the necessary information to make an informed decision. The standardization wished for by the EU looks to be a long way off.

A level playing field?

As shown, implementing Part-NCC will not be easy. An additional difficulty will arise since the legality of Part-NCC is increasingly questioned. Indeed, the submission to Part-NCC of aircraft registered in third countries raises eyebrows not only of third countries, but even of a number of European NAAs. As mentioned above, if Part-NCC applied today, the European-based operators of such aircraft would be subject to the double oversight of the SoR and of the SoO – without any coordinated mechanism for shared oversight.

Therefore, it is understandable that European NAAs are cautious about the idea of having to accept as SoO their own parallel and possibly conflicting responsibility while the ICAO system attributes the majority of the oversight obligations to the SoR, on which the relevant SoO will have no control.What would happen in case of an accident, if a default of oversight over the operator is attested by the accident report? Legal certainty demands that only one authority is held responsible for this lack of oversight, and not two.

This European intrusion into the competence of the SoR, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs, could well be an own goal for the EU should Part-NCC be declared legally not applicable to aircraft registered in third countries. Indeed and in such a case, has the probable exodus of many EU registered aircraft to new horizons, different from the EU regulatory world but equally safe, been envisaged? And if the EU could against all odds impose its system, how could it ensure that all operators will play the game?

Today, the European NAAs do not have the legal and practical tools to effectively and quickly control if a non-commercial flight operated by a non-commercial operator is legal or not. So, how are we to believe that these NAAs will be able to ensure that all operators concerned by Part-NCC have declared themselves, or that they will be able to prosecute the black sheep?

The EU’s intentions seem to be doomed to fail. Its failure to anticipate the hurdles of regulatory enforcement will once more benefit those who feel at ease in the grey area – to the detriment of those who comply with the rules and finally pay the bill. In both cases, the principle of “level playing field” between operators as advocated by the EU will remain a dead letter and competition distortions are likely to increase.

The responsibility of the EU

Business aviation has never been seriously considered by European legislators and NAAs. This is clear in the fact that commercial operators are still subject to rules poorly adapted to their activities while non-commercial operators have remained almost unregulated for decades. Although the non-commercial sector has never been safer than today, the EU’s intention to fill part of the gap with commercial standards makes sense. However, the first practical and legal issues reported above tend to show that its regulatory ambitions are not yet mature.

This precipitation is not new. Just consider the high price that the general aviation sector has paid in recent years because of inappropriate regulations based on a failure to properly identify the needs of this industry. Today, the EU tries to make adjustments, but the damage is done and the business aviation community wants to avoid – at all costs – the same costly experience.

While non-commercial operators are ready to accept new operational rules – this is not the issue – these should be reasonable, applicable and uniformly enforceable, and respect the rights and competence of the SoR. However, unlike the fate reserved to the EU ETS system put on hold by powerful political lobbies, non-commercial operators do not have the same lobbying influence to force the discussion with the EU. The EU should be incited to further analyze the adverse consequences of its regulation and to initiate discussions with ICAO – which has never really been able to impose its Annex 6 Part II regulation – for a better and above all effective legal and oversight system applicable worldwide. Such a system would be applicable equally to EU registered aircraft and to the several hundred non-EU registered aircraft frequently based in the Old Continent - see attachment below.

European aircraft owners and operators are not willing to become the guinea pigs of the EU lab and to pay the price for choices that the EU has taken unilaterally and a bit lightly. For this reason, and in order to protect the business aviation market and help the European NAAs, a quick reaction by the EU is essential. Time is short and the badly tied up regulatory package should be exchanged for a better product as soon as possible, before irreparable damage is caused to all of those who invest huge time and financial resources to (try to) comply with the regulations.

Article by Philippe Renz, Meyer Avocats Attorney

The playing field will never actually be level while EASA rules are so sloppily drafted and national authorities are given leeway to exempt and decideindividual cases.
The EU has a worrying tendency to declare a "law" with no detail and allow the rules to develop far too slowly for real people to plan their lives and their business.
I don't know what the solution might be, so I left.

At least bloody NetJets and the like will love it, cause no one in their right mind will buy a new airplane for a new private operation any more. NCC is in todays form a mess and a nightmare. The fun part is to try to get any real info from the LBA about on how, when and what shape to implement the sh!te...

Complex operation: less than 20 pilots etc, one is non complex, unless you operate with B/Prnav...WTF ? 18.5 years to retirement, I just hope I make it there soon enough....

Quote from the Swiss Lawyer below,
"This European intrusion into the competence of the State of Registry, which additionally prevents the latter from discharging their responsibility to the benefit of the European NAAs"

So, the State of Registry for Third Country Operators are having their competency questioned by none other than EASA, this must be a joke !

The benefits of being N reg, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM etc are that this kind of tripe shouldn't be allowed to happen. Can they please either independently or collectively put an end to this rubbish and go forward with keeping the business of thousands of loyal companies that have kept them in jobs.

If the requirement is to maintain two different sets of rules for state of registry and NAA / EASA then the question of responsibility in case of accidents etc, makes the whole process unworkable and illegal for the insurance process.

When you give a retard a box of matches!!!!!
They will figure how to light themselves on fire!

calm down!
 

It's really not that hard. Take the SOR regulations, compare them to the ICAO and EASA regulations and comply with the most onerous of the the three. It's a paperwork job to compare them and the end result is your operation will be as safe as it can possibly be.

Fly safe :)

EASA is full of lawyers and bureaucrats.

It's in both these groups interests and long term survival and growth to make any system impenetrably complex and requiring massive administration. I'd say job well done.

What they don't have is clear identifiable and measurable objectives related to the real-world and against which they retain or loose their jobs. Unlike the rest of us who are subject to their shenanigans.

there's the rub...!

:=
The correct word is "legally".

The State of Registry is the legally binding authority along with their regulations under their laws. This is what is paid for through these authorities by the aircraft owners, and this is what is legal and correct from an airworthiness, operational and regulatory viewpoint. If this is to be undermined or if two sets of regulations are having to be followed, then it ultimately clouds the area of flying legally should an accident occur.

Also, are you saying then that Ops manual templates currently being worked on by some private register CAA's are likely to be useless, and that another countries more onerous CAA Ops manual regulations need to be followed ?
I find this highly unprofessional both towards the operators concerned and to the extremely well qualified professionals currently writing the templates, for use by the operators on their private registries.

I think any half decent flight departments look at the regulations as the minimum level they need to achieve, not the target they must strive to achieve. As soon as the industry as a whole stops looking at what they have to do "legally" and instead concentrate on what they must do to ensure safe operations we will see less moaning by individuals about EASA standards. Look to ICAO, EASA and your SOR; determine which of the standards are most onerous for each area of operation and aim to exceed them. If you're aiming to tick the boxes you really aren't running a safe operation.

What an extraordinary thing to say! So you're suggesting that by fully complying with every applicable EASA regulation is not a sufficient standard to be safe???????

One wonders what the point of all those regulation IS after all.......

Safe is not an absolute. The regulations set the overall minimum standard acceptable to the overall society they are in. At the very light end there is deregulation because society says the risk is (almost) entirely yours so bon chance! At the heavier end there is more regulation because society bears more risk for your actions. Biz av and NCC sits somewhere odd in the middle. So if all you are aiming for is being compliant...then you are probably not achieving the safety level your clients expect.

The main threat of safety is when you start operating outside of your Aircraft State of Registry laws / ANO etc. This will inevitably lead to more incidents and accidents and be a less safe operation. There have been many Operators over the years where this has indeed caused safety incidents - operating outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules, therefore essentially uninsurable as a result.

Any half decent flight department with zero safety violations over many years will of course question why they are now seemingly being ordered to operate outside of their State of Registry legally binding rules (by EASA, a non ICAO entity), and as a result rendering every flight likely uninsurable. This is clearly not acceptable.

I think that is a questionn which many ask ? My guess it's more about the EASA jobs and to justify the expensive wine bar expenses than us and satisfying the whims of some people in high places
Safety ? Think that's way down the list

Simple.
To justify their ridiculous paychecks, and to show the paying public that "they are doing something".

Part-NCC and the rest of Regulation 965/2012 for EASA Air Operations is the law in all EU member states, in the same way Part-CAT is for AOC operators. It automatically superceeds and overrides all equivalent legislation at national level. The ANO in the UK will be updated in 2016 to reflect this when NCO/NCC comes into force. There isn't really any question over its legal status.

Inevitably there is a bit of confusion over practical implementation at the outset with all regulations, especially when it's being applied to operators for whom formal organisational requirements are something new. The UK CAA has put a certain amount of effort into explaining the new rules, although I don't know how effective that has been.

That all said, Part-NCC asks for requirements well over the top of current national regulations for privately operated complex aircraft, which generally already had a reasonable safety record - I'd be amazed if it does much to improve it! Classic case of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.

It might be law in EU states but we are discussing non EU states of Registry and their associated laws / ANO etc, such as FAA, Cayman, Bermuda, IOM, Aruba etc. None of these are EU states and each has its own separate legislation. The Owner / Operator putting their plane on these private registers has to adhere by law to the State of Registry, and pay all associated fees for registration, airworthiness etc.

When it is demanded that you adopt legislation from outside the State of Registry you are of course going to be extremely concerned that this is therefore going to register your insurance policy void and flight operations illegal.

Part NCC may well supersede legislation at a national level for EU countries, but definitely not for non EU countries. If it did it is a slippery slope and it won't be long before EASA try to turn on the other legislation issued from these registries (if they don't stand up to them now) EASA simply don't have any legal right especially as a non ICAO entity to do this to a non EU State of Registry.

It comes down to legal oversight of the non EU States of Registry. These states are not part of the EU, EASA is also not a member of ICAO, so in the event of accident or incident if these laws are forced on non EU aircraft registries then you are likely uninsured, as you have adopted legislation from a (non ICAO) EU body for an aircraft registered outside of Europe.
Rather like for example CASA poking their nose into these registries and trying to force you to adopt say some of Australia's ANO / legislation into your own because someone at CASA told you to do so. The moment you step outside the remit of your own non EU State of Registry and their legislation you will eventually run into legal difficulties.

Beaver, I agree there is some lack of clarity around the issue of where the operator resides and the associated implications of that. But practically speaking, the question that should be asked is whether the operator is resident in the EU or not. If they are, then EASA rules apply, regardless of the registration of the aircraft. If outside the EU...and the aircraft is not registered in the EU, then you escape...

The deadline for resident 3rd country aircraft to comply is currently April 2016, although NCC doesn't come until August. I suspect the April deadline will get pushed back again, but I can't be sure. Might be worth waiting until early next year, and if it doesn't get moved again, get skates on to be NCC compliant.

It's also looking like sub 5.7 twin turboprops will be excepted from compliance.

You are right to suggest for Operators to wait until early next year.
But what difference does Operator location have to do with anything ? It's nothing to do with safety then.

If implemented the non EU States of Registry will have Operators who are being forced to comply with a quite unintelligible EASA (non ICAO) ruling based on Operator location, which will likely leave themselves wide open still to the very real threat of insurers not paying out in the event of accident or incident. Adopting such a ridiculous ruling from outside the State of Aircraft Registry will lead to more safety violations due to having to comply with two different sets of legislation. The question will be asked as to who is the real state of oversight ? A legal minefield and one that any insurer will surely use to it's advantage.

Ops manual templates issued by the professional aviation personnel at these non EU States of Registry will seemingly be invalid then, and some Operators forced to adopt an EU states Ops manual template instead.

I mean the short answer is that operators will have to find a way of being compliant with both - if the two are in conflict I agree there is confusion.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is though, I fly both UK and N-reg aircraft in Europe and as long as one complies with whichever set of rules imposes the higher requirements, you are OK. I've yet to come across a scenario in which the two are in conflict to the point that compliance with both is impossible.

Leaving aside that issue though, it has always been the case that states may apply rules to the aircraft of other states when flying within their national boundaries - the fact that the origin of those laws comes from the EU does change that - it is still the law in those member states as if passed at national level.

I suppose this point could be debated for ever, we'll just have to wait and see I guess...

How could you know that...? Any reference?

Perhaps this has been EASA's game all along. "Exotic" registered private aircraft with "local" operators have been a thorn in the side of European regulators for years. (For no good reason may I add, apart from a simple denial of control & power)
Now with compliance becoming a much more complex issue maybe they are banking on operators getting scared of the insurance non-payout consequences of a prang and run into the arms of EASA full registration. :ugh:
Never assume these office boys and girls are just bureaucrats. They are wily & shrewd.

Private jet

This had nothing to do with safety but the whim of certain pressure groups with self interest and powerful individuals with influence on EASA determined to curb the use of N reg in Europe which they had attempted and failed for decades

it is a belligerent nonsense to find a legal way of stopping N reg operations in Europe which had failed many times previously I could even be a fly on the wall and seeing orders given to their legal department to find a way dual licences being the way they came up with.

It will only be stopped when someone with enough money challenges it in the EU courts. the commission have already delayed it because of legal implications and nothing has changed.Saddling working pilots with huge costs both financially and in time! to retain their rightful work for no practical or sensible reason is a nonsense. What happens to those pilots who have worked for decades in Europe legitimately and have only a few years left in their careers? how do they justify those costs and hassle for such a short period of time left other than being forced to be deprived of their livelihoods early?

there are existing laws in the EU giving rights to a livelihood and age discrimination laws to protect people from such abuse of power.

But of course EASA were working tirelessly towards a BI lateral agreement?:ugh: More likely in the bars and restaurants with their expensive expense accounts

Surely the other claim about requiring oversight should be covered in part NCC? So why bother with the rest removing pilots right to work and saddling them with huge costs as individuals part NCC should suffice?Some sort of operating procedures and oversight of those procedures makes sense the dual licensing does not and I hope part NCC is a saving face way out for EASA

i for one hope the British public vote us out of the EU that would cause some major legal problems with this nonsense and frankly that is what it is NON SENSE

Pace

I agree with you 100%.

Pace,

What do you see as the advantages of operating N-registered aircraft as an operator based in a state under EASA jurisdiction?

Journey man

You have it right on the nail ) like any market people will go for the best deal if what EASA offered was so attractive designed to streamline costs in an efficient cost effective way then there would be no N reg in Europe instead there is a mass of N reg
The market dictates EASA don't want that market so regulate the competition out !
We have a strange comparison in London and Black Cabs! Uber moved in with what is a very efficient system and are taking the market! A trip that costs me £25 in a black cab costs me £12 with a much more comfortable UBer car! Black cabs want them regulated out but thankfully appear to be failing.
EASA had the opportunity to take the FAA system and make it better but chose this chaotic regulatory way

Pace

Absolutely right....about both EASA and Uber.

May I also say that EASA had a blank sheet! Aviation is worldwide and there was a fantastic opportunity here to really bring the worldwide regulations much closer together which in turn would have lead to true and easy BI lateral agreements but no EASA wanted to re write the rule books to isolate themselves
What a missed opportunity and for what ? The mess they have put in place ?

Pace

Spot on again. Another European laughing stock.

Yeah right..... Just like Uber: replace properly trained drivers, who are insured, who know where they go and pay taxes (well most of them ;)) with a bunch of guys who have no idea, dont speak any known language, some of whom are not insured and have a tendency not to pay taxes...

So in your world let's get pay to fly pilots fly our aircraft and let them fight over lowering their salaries, no need for them to learn anything like line training as they have a CPL so that is enough, SMS systems out of the window as price is important.

I rather have an authority that is trying to create a level playing field by getting rid of all the "flagging out" mom and pop operations which are as good as they guy or gal running the place and in a race to the bottom in terms, quality and standards!

Now I know you guys are all smarter than Chuck Yeager with an MBA but the rules are made with for the other SOB's that bend the rules, think they are smarter than they are, think that they operate safer than they are in mind. So get of your high horse and give them proper feedback instead of this Daily Mail like nonsense. :mad::mad::mad:

Rant over and locking the cockpit door :}

Global_Global, please.
I dunno in your country, but in mine (Italy) a taxi driver is a guy who simply bought a fancy piece of paper either from the gov'ment or someone else close to retiring (and paying an outrageous price for it).
Like me coming to you and offering you some money for your ATP, so I can work for the 'lines.

Comparing London Black Cabs and Uber is a bit like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Dhaihatsu. Might do the job most of the time but the devil is in the detail.
London Black Cab drivers have "the knowledge" so they know where they are going all the time. Their vehicles conform to a spec that allows access by the old, the disabled, those with buggies and bags. Most important, they have a safety history that is second to none. I can't ever recall a lone woman being in danger by taking a Black Cab. I would always take a Black Cab in London after dark.
EASA on the other hand.......can't actually think of a good word to say about them. Their "mission" to establish conformity across Europe has failed miserably and introduced yet more red tape and stupidity to an already complicated arena.

Interestingly Global Global I agree with your point about low hour jet FO's and pay to fly pilots. It shouldn't be allowed in Europe especially when they have just a couple of hundred hours total when let loose on heavy jets.
But I hate to break it to you it's been going on for many years though in EASA land, with the low cost airlines, pilots on zero hour contracts and paying for their type rating. Many are known to be on the breadline, and many examples of European Airlines can be given. All of these pilots have EASA licences and you only need to conduct a short forum search about how much pressure they feel they are under, and how much pressure more importantly the person in the left seat is under having to fly with them. I read that pretty much it's like flying as single crew for these Captains, tail strikes are common for example along with many other safety issues, these low hour wannabes simply don't have the correct experience levels. Their company SMS certainly doesn't help with their problems. The root cause being greed of the Airline in question and the young wannabe trying to sidestep the proper experience levels.
Going back to corporate the problems remain even with your gold plated SMS / Ops manual / EASA licence that you think solve all problems.
I don't believe that they do as they currently and consistently fail to provide any form of additional safety for these European based bargain basement cut costs to the knuckle AOC ops (there are many) or worse AOC umbrella ops that stick their crews in substandard hotels, constantly flaunt FTL's and either don't put their crews through sim (basic LPC) or ensure its the cheapest and shortest sim course available.
Private Ops generally have a better safety record than the above, the argument that an SMS / Ops manual will improve an already decent and better safety record from bargain basement AOC ops (which most are) these days is flawed. However, I am sure that the high total hours flight time experienced corporate pilots such as Pace etc will implement the SMS / Ops manual should the needless conversion to an EASA licence be completely shelved. But EASA cannot have both, as he rightly states the EU precedent of being allowed to fly in Europe on non EU licences was set years ago, the lawsuits will follow should this right to work cease.

You live in a pleasant dreamworld. The point about Uber is that they can't avoid paying taxes because every transaction goes through a system which declares what the driver earns. I wonder how many black cab drivers declare their tips.
I think the point which Pace makes is that the European system is neither better nor safer than the non European system. Looking at the operation known as 24/7 or the organ flight to Birmingham or other recent G reg tragic incidents, I agree with him (for I know it is him) completely.
This is in reply to Global, Global but this daft site has positioned it elsewhere.

This is now a Uber versus black cab ? )) I can only go on my experience with Uber which to date is impressive! Clean modern cars with tidy and polite drivers compared to the bone shaker black cabs! No digging around for money and a scribbled out receipt instead an efficient E mail with the route and price! Details and photo of driver and car. Efficient complaint department and best of all at present around half the price! My guess that's to grab the market and then go up but time will tell! Yes you are right they don't have the knowledge and will slavishly follow the GPS ))

Back to EASA this has nothing to do with safety! The statistics don't match a need to close a danger hole with private jet operations in fact statistically private jets operated by professional crew have a better safety level than AOC op jets
I stress EASA had a clean sheet could have looked at things globally and taken the FAA system fine tuning it to suit Europe and maybe even bettered it saving the tax payer a fortune but instead their motivations were political and creative towards their own jobs not the furthering of the health of aviation
We now have this tangled expensive mess to deal with

Pace ( daily M ))))

The difference between Black Cabs and Uber is....

Price: Uber good value. Black Cabs outrageously expensive
Knowledge: Black Cab drivers spent ages learning "The Knowledge" while Uber drivers rely on a GPS based system called Googlemaps which is more efficient and up to date.

I don't know what navigation system you use. Perhaps it is dead reckoning or NDB. However, most of us now use GPS based systems just as Uber do.
Believe me...it's the future.

Again, a reply for flyingfemme. Apologies that PRUNE doesn't put me in the right place.

Not the one who couldn't find the Old Curiosity Shop.

Lots of indignant frothing at EASA here that is completely missing the point: 90% of what they are doing is complying with the ICAO requirements.
As the Overseas Territories have already done. I assume all you people operating VP & VQ are complying with the OTARs? Or are you just ignoring them because the Bermudans and Caymans don't have enough inspectors to do much auditing? Or even have not read them, like one operation I came across recently that thought they only applied to AOCs.
The FAA are planning to implement it all as well, just under the US system it takes about 20 years for any rule changes to go through.
Interestingly, I understand that the FAA are quite supportive of it all, since apparently one of their biggest headaches is all the aircraft flying around outside North America with "N" painted on them that are not compliant. Until they changed the lifetime registration system a few years ago they reckoned that nearly 50% of them weren't even on the register!
And finally, for all those hysterically shouting "it's illegal", I suggest you learn some basic air law. The regulations of the country you are flying in always apply in addition to those of the country of registration. ICAO has no regulatory power, it is merely an agreement between countries to respect most of each other's licencing etc. But every single country is entitled to "file differences", and many do. In fact I think the UK has one of the highest numbers!
So while EASA has many faults, I think GlobalGlobal is on the right track here.

Biz jet jock

That is dressing things up ? I am
Not against oversight of third country aircraft operating in Europe and part M is hard to argue against
I do argue against saddling pilots with holding licences which have no relevance to the aircraft being flown legally or otherwise
Gaining those licences which is expensive for pilots and hardly worthwhile for older pilots who only have a few years to go
This pointless requirement will stop pilots from the right to work and force early retirement on older pilots and for what ?

Pace

Only the right to work in Europe, Pace.

Are you not placing EASA AOC holders at a commercial disadvantage?

Could you post the source for your statistics on private versus AOC operators safety records; I'm interested in the topic and would love to take a look at the primary source.

Thanks