N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness there is a very simply way around that. Ban everything below 3 tonnes. It achieves the same thing, but doesn't upset large industry
It's a bit like banning convicted paedophiles from having unsupervised access to children, but exempting those who are Rotarians and Masons.
It's so easy to go down a road where legislation achieves actually nothing and just looks vindictive, mean and spiteful. It does happen occassionally but not very often.
This is indeed the key issue with all proposed action against N-reg. The bigger operators have multiple aircraft and will structure their parking within the EU so as to work below any long term annual parking limit. They will avoid having any maintenance done in the EU, as that would count towards their allowance (which will wipe out large chunks of very high value maintenance business in the EU). Other people will work around it by temporarily leasing in planes and rotating them, etc, etc, etc. Anybody employing a paid crew will be able to work around any FCL-based attack (crew with EU citizenship will be fired). Only the low end GA owner community will get hit, and one has to ask: for what purpose?
What I really really hate is when some righteous person on here (2 or 3 of them) says this is the right and proper thing to do, they are going to get you this time hehehe, when objectively the result will be a purely spiteful and vindictive measure effectively only against those with the least money.
Thread Starter
The only 'right and proper' solution to the N-reg saga is to make the EU equivalent more appealing, thus rendering the need for the N-reg and associated licences and ratings superfluous.
However, there is currently no evidence of this happening. The EU seems determined to use the blunt instrument of legislation - and has no real answer as to 'Why?'....
Hopefully someone will find a creative way round stupid legislation....
However, there is currently no evidence of this happening. The EU seems determined to use the blunt instrument of legislation - and has no real answer as to 'Why?'....
Hopefully someone will find a creative way round stupid legislation....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That right, DP, but then why bother in the first place?
A lot of it may be scaremongering too. Put out enough rumours that something bad is going to happy to N reg, and then people avoid it, and the "problem" goes away.
But as BEagle says, the real solution is to make things so good in Europe, that no one wants to go N reg. If only those in charge could see that, we would all be so much better off.
dp
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the most part, in order to ban N-registered aircraft, you have to ban US corporate owned aircraft. Not an easy thing to do.
I think that it effects far few 'corporates' than you would think and EASA know it.
This excuse get rolled out time and time again by the small GA N-Reg operators as the reason why things won't change. Personally I think they are wrong......
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the IMCR were to go, that's roughly around 3000 pilots losing IFR privileges
All this talk about high end operators is utter rubbish.
Netjets, the big American GA Fractional operator came to Europer some time ago. Now if there ever was an operator who would use the N reg if it suited then there is one. However, they in Europe operate all their aircraft on the European register, JAR-OPS and EASA and all that goes with it.
N reg may be good for the 172 flyer who will save a few grand on obtaining an IR but not worth it for the higher end players who spend lots more money and will have far more influence in cush matters.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO540
I appreciate your comments about the 1000nm leg in Europe, but really if you counted the amount of PPL/IR flown legs of that length regardless of nationality inbetween fl100 and fl200, I doubt you would count 10 sectors per day. Invariably the aircraft that will make such altitudes and then subject themselves to winds equal to their cruising speeds are that expensive then perhaps the cost admittedly in terms of Time/Avgas/Jet A1 is only a tiny part of the aquisition costs and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.
I once experienced a N reg malibu owner seriously overload his aircraft with people, fuel, bags and dogs and caused absolute chaos when he was asked to climb to FL170, he couldnt make the level due weight but tried, caused imeasurable problems for ATC. Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.
There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.
This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.
If EASA are capable of this much chaos, how much chance do you think the UK based FAA operators have of keeping their privileges.
I appreciate your comments about the 1000nm leg in Europe, but really if you counted the amount of PPL/IR flown legs of that length regardless of nationality inbetween fl100 and fl200, I doubt you would count 10 sectors per day. Invariably the aircraft that will make such altitudes and then subject themselves to winds equal to their cruising speeds are that expensive then perhaps the cost admittedly in terms of Time/Avgas/Jet A1 is only a tiny part of the aquisition costs and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.
I once experienced a N reg malibu owner seriously overload his aircraft with people, fuel, bags and dogs and caused absolute chaos when he was asked to climb to FL170, he couldnt make the level due weight but tried, caused imeasurable problems for ATC. Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.
There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.
This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.
If EASA are capable of this much chaos, how much chance do you think the UK based FAA operators have of keeping their privileges.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair IO, the discussion is always going to be polarized with you on one side with a vested interest in N-reg ops and others on the other side.
I am sat on the fence just playing devils advocate......
I am sat on the fence just playing devils advocate......
Until any of this is actually approved and written down in law then it is pure speculation. I really don't think this is helping anybody, certainly not my stress levels (I really shouldnt read this crap but for some reason I seem drawn to it like a p#ss head is to curry).
Some of us (like me) actually make a living from professionaly flying 'N' reg corporate aircraft in Europe, converting to the JAR/EASA equivelant is not an option for some. I'm not trying to find an 'easy' or 'cheap' way around the regulations, simply flying with an FAA licence is the only way in which I will ever get to do this fantastic job.
When i'm in various European business aviation lounges and speaking to other FAA and JAR corporate pilots they all tell me that the rumours written on here about what EASA promise to do are quite wrong, some claim to have very close contacts within the EASA working group. Who to believe?
Some of us (like me) actually make a living from professionaly flying 'N' reg corporate aircraft in Europe, converting to the JAR/EASA equivelant is not an option for some. I'm not trying to find an 'easy' or 'cheap' way around the regulations, simply flying with an FAA licence is the only way in which I will ever get to do this fantastic job.
When i'm in various European business aviation lounges and speaking to other FAA and JAR corporate pilots they all tell me that the rumours written on here about what EASA promise to do are quite wrong, some claim to have very close contacts within the EASA working group. Who to believe?
Pompey till I die
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guildford
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this fair? Should the non-benefiting taxpayer pay for the few to enjoy this boon?
So yes, I can get funded for something that I do enjoy, for once.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.
Especially since FL290 is an RVSM level.
Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate your comments about the 1000nm leg in Europe, but really if you counted the amount of PPL/IR flown legs of that length regardless of nationality inbetween fl100 and fl200, I doubt you would count 10 sectors per day.
Invariably the aircraft that will make such altitudes and then subject themselves to winds equal to their cruising speeds
are that expensive then perhaps the cost admittedly in terms of Time/Avgas/Jet A1 is only a tiny part of the aquisition costs
and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.
I once experienced a N reg malibu owner seriously overload his aircraft with people, fuel, bags and dogs and caused absolute chaos when he was asked to climb to FL170
, he couldnt make the level due weight but tried, caused imeasurable problems for ATC. Now one bad apple does not ruin the crop but this is what you are up against in convincing ATC/EASA/ICAO that Part time PPL/IR's who lets face it probably aren't as current as they could be, should be mixing it with Airbuses and Boeings.
And, of course, commercial flights are never overloaded. ATPs never do crazy things. What about that transport jet (727?) which gained only about 1000ft after 20nm out of Gatwick? That one didn't make the papers, but there are many cases like this.
Can you give precise details of the "imeasurable problems for ATC" assertion?
There is a serious consideration right now by EASA to forbid single crew IFR above FL290 (ie RVSM), this has just in one swoop effectively reduced by 40% the range of all the capable bizjets that would normally be cruising out of the way in the upper thirties and early forties.
This will have a dramatic effect on corporate/private operators by shutting out professionally simulator trained and qualified pilots of the upper levels.
What WILL happen is that a slow jet trying to get upper airway routings is not going to get the good ones in the denser parts of Europe, and they won't like it very much.
If EASA are capable of this much chaos, how much chance do you think the UK based FAA operators have of keeping their privileges
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bose-x, there is little mileage in your "sitting on the wall" stirring it up smugness.
People's livelihoods and significant extra (unproven benefit) expense are at stake here.
Just because (for some undiscernable reason) you decided to fork out a far larger sum of money and give up far more valuable time going through the convoluted path to obtain a european IR to go with the rest of your ("do I need any more") qualifications should not condemn the rest of us to do the same.
Come up with a reciprocal euro IR-lite and you will be forgiven, IO540 is far from alone in feeling concerned about proposals that would change the current infrastructure.
The eurocrats needs to make their qualification accessible and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification.
In the meantime - put a sock in it.
SB
People's livelihoods and significant extra (unproven benefit) expense are at stake here.
Just because (for some undiscernable reason) you decided to fork out a far larger sum of money and give up far more valuable time going through the convoluted path to obtain a european IR to go with the rest of your ("do I need any more") qualifications should not condemn the rest of us to do the same.
Come up with a reciprocal euro IR-lite and you will be forgiven, IO540 is far from alone in feeling concerned about proposals that would change the current infrastructure.
The eurocrats needs to make their qualification accessible and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification.
In the meantime - put a sock in it.
SB
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the owners should be considering getting national licenses instead of doing it on the cheap.
Having to get a JAA IR to hold an FAA IR is crazy a lot of people just wont bother and will stick with their PPL. EASA are comprising safety in my books.
J.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eurocrats needs to make their qualification accessible and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification.
Many others are in the same situation.
ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same.
So are you really saying;
The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?
Should we start teaching guide dogs to fly so that the blind are not so disadvantaged in the future?
No matter where the line is there will always be some who do not reach the requirement.
Note that this is a flag of convenience issue rather than N reg. There are more flag of convenience registrations based in the EU than the N. VH, VP and of course M all come under that heading.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same
JAA have taken an ICAO recommendation and gold plated it into a mandatory multi-frequency audiogram, which must be passed by each ear separately, mandatory for any IR holder even a private pilot.
The USA did the smart thing and filed a difference on this crap. Even an ATP doesn't need it, and I hold a Class 1 medical BTW, good enough to fly a 747 into Heathrow.
The problem with Europe is that European IFR pilots never had nobody looking after their interest (there is no "Euro AOPA") and regs didn't get noticed until it was too late. I dare say PPL/IR Europe would draw attention to this kind of thing if somebody tried to pull the fast one again. Also the CAA IR was much easier to do in years gone by, with various grandfather routes enabling entry into the renewal stream (see below). This is how most old codgers like you got into the system.
To compound the irony, on a JAA renewal you get a demonstrated ability route which is what keeps large numbers of partly deaf airline pilots from losing their jobs.
You can that "flag of convenience"
Shame on you.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So are you really saying;
The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?"
No, clearly I am not.
SB
The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?"
No, clearly I am not.
SB
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly, IO540 chose the FAA IR route not for the cost but because he was medically unable to meet the minimum standard required for a JAA IR.
Many others are in the same situation.
ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same.
So are you really saying;
The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?
Should we start teaching guide dogs to fly so that the blind are not so disadvantaged in the future?
Many others are in the same situation.
ICAO standards and JAR standards in this respect are the same.
So are you really saying;
The eurocrats needs to lower their standards and hence obviate the need for us to troop over to the USA and get the FAA qualification?
Should we start teaching guide dogs to fly so that the blind are not so disadvantaged in the future?
Too much regulation happens on the basis of "That's the way it's always been" rather than thinking things through.
dp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAA have taken an ICAO recommendation and gold plated it into a mandatory multi-frequency audiogram, which must be passed by each ear separately, mandatory for any IR holder even a private pilot.
Where do we draw the line?
Should we let pilots who fail to meet the visual requirements fly?
Should we let pilots who fail to meet the requirements in respect of issues such as diabetes fly?
I am sorry that you (probably) through no fault of your own can not meet the international hearing standard for instrument rated pilots but there are lots of handicaped people out there who would oove to be pilots but can't pass the medical. Are you saying that they should not fly but your should becasuse you are a special case?
--------
Scooter boy,
If you are not saying that the standards should be lower, then what (in respect of PPL flying) is there to change without changing the standards of knowledge, proficiency and medical fitness?
------
Dublinpilot,
It would only be a cheap shot if IO540 had not previously told everyone why he went FAA.
It is simply an example of probably very few areas where one can circumvent the laws of a country where one is resident.
Give me an example of another area of the law where if you don't like it, you can import a version more to your liking?
Regards,
DFC