No, that's not correct and if you read the latest notice it states more than UK operators. It's immaterial to the many who have dealt directly with the Euro MEP's and Parliament leading the policy and derogation. They have written what I posted from my former colleague previously and signed it, and further to this it seems that the UK CAA are misinterpreting what has been written by the Euro MEP's. In no way does part NCC dictate any requirement for a UK validation, it isn't required. The unrestricted airspace and licence derogation has been confirmed by the European Authorities who apparently have full legal jurisdiction over this matter.

Mattman, if you want a copy of the MEP's email confirming this then pm me and I'll forward on your email address to my contact. And yes you are absolutely correct in your decision to continue as are the huge amount of pilots in the same position that have been in contact. I wish you all the best

Absolutely correct, this is a Part-FCL requirement.
Part -FCL came into effect in 2012, and states that crew of aircraft operated by an entity based in an EASA state must hold EASA licences or validations. Article 12.4 states that member states may elect to defer the implementation of this. Note may not must. The thing that has been put back again and again is the date to which they can defer.
So the CAA has decided that the deferral beyond August will only apply to PPLs effectively, and apparently some other countries have not taken up the deferral at all. The UK's policy therefore applies to aircraft whose operators are based in the UK, France's to French ones, etc.
Letters by an MEP sying that they meant the regulations to mean something else are as much use as yesterday's newspaper if you have an inspector grounding your aircraft because you do not meet the requirements that are actually there. If they meant them to mean something else then they should have written something else.
Having said that, I can't see how there is any way of enforcing it at a ramp check level, it can only be done at an operator audit level. I don't see there being many of those for Part-NCC operators for a long time.

I don't wish to argue with you and you are entitled to your opinion. You state operators in the UK but I don't think you have read the latest CAA info notice as operator outside the U.K. seems to be wrongly included too. It is cast iron from lead aviation policy Euro MP's in writing that the derogation applies to all EU countries as they state they represent them all, and it is unrestricted for remunerated and non remunerated, applying to all EU airspace. Not sure why you would argue against it.

I agree that the CAA notice talks about airspace, which just goes to show that the rules are so stupidly complicated that even the authorities don't understand them. But again, how are the UK going to assess the base of the operator of a visiting aircraft in order to decide whether it applies even under their interpretation?
But with regards to MEPs, here is the regulation as published:
Can you tell me how that can be interpreted as all countries will allow third party licences to be used? As I said, no amount of letters from an MEP saying they meant it to say something else is going to change it; they have to change the actual regulation.
The CAA, in their wisdom:E, have elected to only not apply the rule until August for pilots flying NCC type aircraft. That is 100% within what the rule says, however much we may disagre with it. Life can be tough sometimes.

The fact is that EU aviation laws have been a disaster in my opinion from the start, and countries generally fail to translate them correctly. That being said I'll stake my money on a statement from a lead Euro Aviation MP who is responsible for these regulations which they agree that the derogation includes all EU countries airspace, and all pilots including the ones that get paid to fly for a living. So we will just have to agree to disagree on NCC and licences, everyone I know states that NCC is not relevant to the type of licence that you hold and it clearly isn't.

Here's the regulation:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex

What is says is that member states may decide not to apply the require for an EASA licence. The default is that the requirement for an EASA licence is there unless the state specifically opts out.

The EU highest level policy makers have confirmed this is not the case, and that the derogation applies to all EU airspace and all EU countries. Common sense really, if this was the case then segregated airspace with opposing rules in a supposedly common EU aviation authority wouldn't work and is quite pathetic if we think about it logically. Could you ever see anything like this happening in the states ? I don't think so.

Beaver

Check your mail

I suspect that what the MEP was trying to tell you is that the derogation provision (Article 12.4 of Regulation 1178/2011) applies to all Member States. This is correct. However, as others have pointed out Article 14.4 does not automatically apply the derogation, rather the derogation is an option given to Member States to use or not to use as they see fit.

So, the safest bet would be to check with all member states that you intend to visit whether or not they have applied the derogation to 1178/2011, and if so, for how long. The UK CAA have clearly lost patience and have dovetailed their implementation date with that for Part NCC compliance ( for remunerated third country licence holders).
I would also check with insurers as to their stance; they don't need much encouragement to duck out of a claim!
AP

Cathar, sorry but that isn't the case at all. A specific set of questions was asked relating to theoretical flights ie depart one country that had opted out and landing in another that hadn't and the legality of the flight. The answer was very clear that it would be legal as the lead policy MEP of the team stated the derogation applies to all EU states as in their own words they are representing them all.

Further questions were asked in the initial stages regarding paid third country licenced pilots flying private aircraft based in Europe. The answer was again clear that this is allowed to continue until at least April next year

Pace, checked my PM but couldn't see a new message, can you resend ?

That would be an interesting one as EASA licenses are not legal or valid on the FAA aircraft being flown and if the pilot holds all the required legal licenses to fly that aircraft as well as the required medicals, type ratings etc the aircraft is legal
The EASA licenses are as useless as toilet paper and have no legal standing on an FAA aircraft so I would imagine not holding the EASA licenses would be a technical infringement rather than an aircraft illegality infringement but interesting point

Also interesting is the commission state that the regulation if derogated to 2017 must be in its entirety, not part thereof

The CAA have removed pilots flying private aircraft for remuneration and dumped them under the classification of commercial operation when by EASA definition they are NON commercial

If those pilots are deemed to be non commercial then what the CAA are trying to do is not lawful and it would be up to a court to determine whether the EASA definition is correct or the CAA interpretation
But it's the commissions reference if derogated must be in its entirety which would mean commercial as defined by EASA not interpretated by the CAA

Also interesting is in previous years quite a few countries never derogated some who aviation authorities had no clue hence from the above many of us were operating into these countries illegally and some would claim uninsured as they are this very day
Never heard of a problem before so why now ?

Hi Pace

Would be interested to see where the regs state that - not saying that it isn't there, just that I haven't seen it.

The latest derogation option here:

EUR-Lex - 32016R0539 - EN - EUR-Lex

says:

Article 4(1)(b) or (c) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 say:


I don't see anything there which either requires a country to derogate (Beaver) or requires them to derogate on an "all or nothing" basis (Pace). If you have got the references to support your assertions then share them with us!

The relevant information has been forwarded to the many pilots that have requested it, and it is quite clear. The above generic link that you post is very basic, the EU Parliament and specific MEP group have chosen to make the derogation conditions clear in writing after answering specific questions. The answers are clear, there are no airspace restrictions as this derogation applies to the whole of the EU airspace and it applies to all remunerated and non remunerated pilots. This carries much more value to professional pilots than your link above.

The latest information notice from the UK CAA about this is incorrectly interpreted especially with regard to their definition of commercial operations which of course we don't apply.

Would also like to ask you are you posting about this because you have a specific issue with your professional colleagues trying to make a living ? or are you asking because this issue affects you in your job role ? If so let me know and you can have a copy delivered to you by email

Hi Beaver

I'm posting because I have met too many pilots of third-country aircraft who have their head in the sand over this and as a result are all too ready to believe what a stranger says on a forum based on private emails which haven't been published rather than reading and understand what the regs say. That's largely because they don't like what the regs say and so it is much more convenient for them to believe something else.

When they get ramped or have an accident are the inspectors going to refer to unpublished emails or to what is written in the regulations?

I'll bow out now as I've said my piece. I really do hope that things work out in your favour. In the meantime I will keep working with the rules as they are written.

T.I.M.U. The current wording of the link that you previously posted I suggest has been incorrectly interpreted by the UK CAA, so if unchanged would need at least national level court intervention.
Coupled with that we have signed email statements from the MEP's who actually approved the derogation in their own words to apply to all EU countries, all EU airspace and all remunerated (or not) third country licenced pilots. I don't think it would be wise to ignore what they have stated.

It is absolutely imperative that this is cleared up as the MEP's quite rightly meant this derogation to mean something else entirely to your link or the UK CAA, their emails do have legal merit.

As for your other comments about pilots of third country aircraft I don't believe that is the case at all. They are all flying legally with the licences or validations of their state of aircraft registry. They have a right to question and challenge interventions to their livelihood, especially when those interventions from an unelected body (EASA) are vague, incorrectly written compared to EU policymakers statements and are ultimately against the human rights and employment laws of those professional pilots

Username

From your own link ;)

Member states have the choice to derogate or not but as stated the regulation shall be binding in its entirety
That does not mean part of, can be selective or reinterpret definitions which are already clearly determined and defined by EASA

Commercial is already clearly defined and does not mean pilots being paid to fly private aircraft.:ugh:

It is the entirety part where I think the CAA would trip up on their latest home made interpretation of commercial.

Strangely we made a challenge on validations based on what was commercial or not commercial and i have a letter from the head of CAA stating the mistake and that we are non commercial in our operations so they change opinion year to year

I personally feel there is a solid legal challenge potential there but will need to get advice. They have made wishful thinking mistakes before in my experience :E

Beaver,

Don't shoot the messenger here, but TIMU, Pace and many others are raising a genuine concern which deals with the legality of the process we are now facing.

At the end of the day, the European court will act upon the laws and rules published by the parliament and not by statements or intentions of a single or several MEP's.

I do recognize the authority of the MEP in question and her intentions to do the right thing but as an old instructor once told me "If it ain't written in the regs, It doesn't exist !" You can bring her emails to the poor pilots trial who just got caught flying only on his 3rd country license, and
you will see the judge throwing it out of the window because for him, it's like a note from your mother allowing you to play with your friends in the garden. He can not (and will not) make any ruling based on exchange of emails.

You can argue at the end of the day that these regulations are limiting our livelihood and therefor our human rights and ability to work, that is a completely different issue which if tackled correctly in court will probably bring the right results.

As for our friends from the FAA, the latest I hear is that they are confused by this matter. They are talking to EASA as the representing body of Europe, but now, every state is taking her own interpretation to these stupid regulations they don't know who they are suppose to clear this matter with.

It also looks like the UK CAA and the DGCA are deliberately trying to shoot down the attempts for 3rd country CPL/ATPL license holders Bi-lateral agreement which will probably mean several people loosing/changing jobs (we know how fond of that government employees are) so we are also looking at internal childish power struggles.

I said my piece, I will probably be off soon to Asia for a contract. I hope there I will be away from this European hornet nest that is bubbling so nicely lately.

I agree with that and it is up to those MEPs to get things changed if incorrectly instigated

my points above are to do with regulations and the letter of those regulations in Law and here I think the CAA have tripped up on their interpretations ENTIRETY being the key word and that leaves no scope to change definitions applied to the regulations by EASA to suit what some clever clogs regulator at the CAA want

I am sure these are just delaying tactics for the inevitable so I still hope the CAA might realise that they are dealing with people and their livelihoods
FAA in Europe has been legal established practice in the EU for longer than the EU has been in existence.
So much so that pilots had set up legitimate business for a long time.

i am sure these CAA employees would equally be horrified if their work and livelihoods were removed at the stroke of a political Pen
it was always historically that the CAA where damaging legislation change caused hardship to innocent people that some sort of grandfather rights were given. It would have been easy to have given restricted ATP or CPL restricted to private operations or annual validations for older pilots while they ran out their careers but the disregard of human rights to work or discrimination laws in treating these pilots as inhuman beings is disgusting

The vast majority of us take as much pride in our work as anyone and my aim is not to abolish these stupid regulations because that is what they are but to get these pilots treated with the respect and consideration they deserve by the authorities and not as vermin to be eliminated

Someflyer, it's a shame that you had to make those comments, you could have emailed my ex colleague who sent you the information if you wanted to discuss further. We felt from your response that you had some kind of pull higher up with the FAA ?

The emails from the MEP are just the start and other action is progressing, but I think it best left now to the pilots who appreciate our efforts. Good luck to all.

Beaver,

It's apparent that you have not read the first line of my post : "Don't shoot the messenger". I think I have raised a point which does have some implications and deserves an answer.

I'm truly sorry that you take it so personally. No one and certainly not me had any intention of having a go at you or your colleagues, On the contrary, I do admire the fact that you are so passionate about an issue that affects so many of us, However I think my point is valid and reading the
communications between you and the MEP is question, I still see a reason for skepticism.

My remark on the CAA is not based only on my own dealings (in fact, dealings with several CAA's and not only the UK one) but also of friends and colleagues which are in need to conduct their business with the authorities.

I did raised this matter with officials in the FAA and still waiting for them to come back but the general impression that I got is that they are confused as we are about the matter and it will take precious time until the FAA will be able to act upon the response it gets from EASA.

I will be looking for job outside Europe because I still need to feed my family and I need a job which doesn't have a sword hanging above it. I see no reason to apologise for that!

I do wish you and your friends the best of luck and from my little corner I will try to support the cause as much as I can (I will PM you any new info that may be transferred to me).

As I said, please take things as been written in a genuine concern and never in an attempt to undermine what you, or your friends are doing.

Happy flying

Forgive me if I have missed something in the thread but I cannot see this aspect covered. I can see and already understand that FAA part 91 is completely different to having an AOC. This thread covers what I see is aimed at corporate aircraft be they operated privately or commercially.

How does this NCC stuff affect the likes of US ferry flight companies, of which there are many, and who are entrusted to be the operator by the aircraft owner or lease company to move their asset from A to B ?

As an example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA and has no offices or staff in EASA land. The lease company, lets say based in France and the aircraft owner has their office registered in USA. The aircraft, lets assume it's an A320, is US registered now that it has been de-registered from it's previous operator registry. The crew hold FAA licences, medicals etc and are based in EASA land or at least that is where they live. The aircraft is not on anyone's AOC and is operated under FAA Part 91 and a FAA ferry permit for the trip A to B, crew only on board.

Another example, the operator (ferry company) is based in USA with no staff or offices in EASA land. Lease company based in France, owner of the aircraft also in France. The aircraft is French registered and keeps the same registry for the ferry flight from A to B. The same crew as above, also hold EASA licences, medical etc and obviously still live in EASA land. The ferry flight is operated under non AOC conditions because it is no longer on the previous operators ops spec so is being flown EASA equivalent of FAA Part 91 and a French ferry permit.

For the sake of ease lets say A and B are locations both inside EASA land.

Oh and if anyone has any EASA links that covers the above, please share so as to keep the answer simple.

Official EASA worded rule is operator based or residing in the EU

UK CAA rule is wrongly interpreted to include third country operators with aircraft based in the UK (even temporarily) however they haven't corrected this yet.

Other EU countries also interpret it wrongly to include pilots based / living in their EU country.

Finally, if you fly N reg in the EU you are in a legal mess. The new regs would essentially leave you without a valid licence, FAA or EASA.

The EASA licence is only valid to fly N reg in the EU country that it is issued, so you would need a separate EASA licence from every other EU country you fly into. (See FAA legal decision below)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rpretation.pdf

And of course EASA / individual CAA's are trying to restrict FAA licence holders in the same way, even though their licence is from the legal state of registry

Thanks Beaver for the document.

But it states that you can fly a N in a European country with an Easa licence issued in the same country.
Most a us are worried about a N plane in EU with a FAA licence.

Thanks Marlon I know this is the worry but how on earth can EASA force FAA licensed pilots flying N reg in Europe to get an EASA licence or validation when,

A. The EASA licence or CAA EASA validation is useless to fly N reg outside of the U.K. or other national airspace as confirmed above by FAA legal. You would need a separate EASA licence from every member state CAA

B. EASA are stipulating that FAA licences are also only valid in national airspace to fly N reg even though the FAA licence is the correct one from the state of registry

It essentially leaves the pilot with two licences that can't be used to fly N reg. Does anyone else see the problem here, and also that therefore EASA or individual CAA's cannot possibly enforce this.

Would an A320 not be operated under FAA Part 125 rather than Part 91?

Bidule.

No Part 91 as stated.

dc9-32

Thanks. I raised the question because I am not too familiar with the US regulations and I recently read that about Part 125:
"§125.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of this section, this part prescribes rules governing the operations of U.S.registered
civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more passengers or a maximum
payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common carriage is not involved."

Thanks Bidule, but Part 91 still applies in the context of the question.

dc9-32
Interesting thoughts.
Part NCC actually seems to have nothing to do with the aircraft or pilot but where the “Operator” is based and as like everything in EASA land it has a certain amount of vagueness.

The EU regulations define the principal place of business as “the head office or registered office of the organization within which the principal financial functions and operational control of the activities are exercised.” This definition leaves room for interpretation .
Sticking my head above the parapet I don’t think it matters whether the aircraft is Part 91 or 125. In the first example the Operator (operational control and Financial functions) is clearly outside EASA land, hence Part NCC shouldn't apply.

In the second case, again the Operator is outside EASA land, however, the aircraft is French registered. At this point I go blank as my understanding was that any complex aircraft registered in the EU would have to comply with Part NCC. I’m not clear and just cannot find a reference at the moment.
This could be a question for a regulator - but good luck getting an answer.

These are just my thoughts so others may know differently.

M.E.

Mike Echo
Well I managed to contact a regulator and according to the UK CAA, if the operator is based outside the EU and has it's principal business activity outside the EU, Part NCC does not apply to them regardless of where the aircraft is registered. Having tried to ask EASA the same question, they didn't even reply but I guess there's no surprise in that.

Interesting that the CAA have confirmed the above dc9-32 which does make sense of these useless regulations. However, their information notice of 3rd May should also be the same as above but instead states, 'All Third Country Operators, with aircraft based within the United Kingdom' and this is clearly wrong and should only apply to Operators based in the EU. It has yet to be changed though but clearly can be ignored as it isn't following the garbage they released from EASA earlier in April this year

IN1171 relates to derogations from Aircrew Regulations not to Part NCC.

Well aware of that TIMU, but the UK CAA have confirmed that they are directly relating IN1171 to the part NCC date of 25 August (as in their own words they think it's a good idea, but it has no legislative basis) They are the only aviation authority that I know who having taken the full yearly derogation to have given a 25 Aug cut off date for paid pilots of non commercial ops, totally against what has been released by EASA. Further to this they are trying to include third country operators within IN1171 (3rd may release) so it is likely that perhaps they will try to do the same for part NCC which would also be incorrect of them

Out of interest, how is everyone getting on with part NCC implementation? Are you finding it a struggle or easy? How are your third country licence guys getting on with conversions?

Did the CAA offer you any assistance?

The company that I fly for has been assessed as a complex operator due the number of staff/aircraft (M reg). We have effectively had to comply with the same requirements as an AOC holder, including SMS and FTL scheme. This process has been going on for the last couple of years and has involved employing specialist staff who have liaised with the various authorities. I am not sure how much help we have received from them as it's not my department. A condition of employment for pilots is that they have an EASA licence and medical regardless of any other licences that they may hold.
I understand that smaller operators may have less strenuous regulatory hoops to jump through but that the aircrew licensing rules are the same?

AP