N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA
Thread Starter
N Reg FAA IR threat from EASA
Yesterday I learned from a FCL001 group person that EASA will continue to allow 'third country' (i.e. N-reg) aircraft to be used in €uroland, provided that they 'Shall be maintained and operated' in an identical manner to EU registered aircraft.
"Does that mean that pilots operating such aircraft under IFR will need to hold EASA FCL IRs?", I asked.
"It means that the owners must maintain and operate their aircraft as though they were on an EU register", came the unhelpful reply...
I repeated my question, rather slower and rather louder. The reply was that there would be no exemptions, so yes, to fly N-reg aircraft with a FAA IR wouldn't be acceptable.
"So who is going to stop all those airline pilots flying N-reg IFR in Europe", I asked...
Errm....aaah....errm....yes, well....good point, well made!
EASA - really is totally unift for purpose and the is proving to be the worst example of a pointless, unnecessary European regulation-generating nonsense organisation ever.
"Does that mean that pilots operating such aircraft under IFR will need to hold EASA FCL IRs?", I asked.
"It means that the owners must maintain and operate their aircraft as though they were on an EU register", came the unhelpful reply...
I repeated my question, rather slower and rather louder. The reply was that there would be no exemptions, so yes, to fly N-reg aircraft with a FAA IR wouldn't be acceptable.
"So who is going to stop all those airline pilots flying N-reg IFR in Europe", I asked...
Errm....aaah....errm....yes, well....good point, well made!
EASA - really is totally unift for purpose and the is proving to be the worst example of a pointless, unnecessary European regulation-generating nonsense organisation ever.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it they were giving a 90 day exemption.
As no airline pilot is based in europe for anything close to that it was a neat side step. Clobbers the N Reg based operators which was always promised and part of the reason the DofT dropped the n reg deporting exercise.
I did point this out on a number of occassions but as usual lost in a hundred pages of telling me why I was wrong.
I do agree that the worst thing that is going to happen to GA is EASA.
But I am sure you can get gte Fuji to organise a petition and speak to some of his new MEP friends to sort it all out.....
As no airline pilot is based in europe for anything close to that it was a neat side step. Clobbers the N Reg based operators which was always promised and part of the reason the DofT dropped the n reg deporting exercise.
I did point this out on a number of occassions but as usual lost in a hundred pages of telling me why I was wrong.
I do agree that the worst thing that is going to happen to GA is EASA.
But I am sure you can get gte Fuji to organise a petition and speak to some of his new MEP friends to sort it all out.....
Last edited by S-Works; 13th Dec 2007 at 06:55.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you not just *base* your aircraft outside the EU and "visit" there once per 90 days? The EU is the worst thing that ever happened to Great Britain.
I was chatting to a danish bloke today who reckons that the EU should be split in two.....England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland forming their own union...and then the other half. I agree with him, let the ones who think alike be together..........
This leaves the Oily part of Europe (My southern french Aunts words, not mine), the Germans and the new Eastern Europeans to get on with life as they see fit, and the Northern Europeans to get on with their ways...
Would suit me, the Norwegians are smart....best thing they ever did was NOT joining the EU.........Had they done so, all their fish would have been poached by Spanish fishermen.
I was chatting to a danish bloke today who reckons that the EU should be split in two.....England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland forming their own union...and then the other half. I agree with him, let the ones who think alike be together..........
This leaves the Oily part of Europe (My southern french Aunts words, not mine), the Germans and the new Eastern Europeans to get on with life as they see fit, and the Northern Europeans to get on with their ways...
Would suit me, the Norwegians are smart....best thing they ever did was NOT joining the EU.........Had they done so, all their fish would have been poached by Spanish fishermen.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the EU should be split in two.....England, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland forming their own union
Still, I suppose we could trade our beer for something they have got, like Swedish women ....... and saunas 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you folks in EASA-land need, is for the FAA to take over.
Much better, and far less expensive...
Having personally held an FAA ATPL for over forty years, with numerous jet, turbopropellor, and large piston type ratings, never once was I charged for a rating endorsement.
And, least you think that a large aircraft type rating is an easy exercise, try it sometime with a hard-nosed FAA inspector...
Much better, and far less expensive...
Having personally held an FAA ATPL for over forty years, with numerous jet, turbopropellor, and large piston type ratings, never once was I charged for a rating endorsement.
And, least you think that a large aircraft type rating is an easy exercise, try it sometime with a hard-nosed FAA inspector...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
englishal
Have discussed the same ideal with Danish colleagues. I would invite the Netherlands as well though. Northern Europeans seem to get on very well together. How about the Irish? I would like them along, but maybe they would want to stay a while with the southerners, as they are making money from the current arrangements!
Have discussed the same ideal with Danish colleagues. I would invite the Netherlands as well though. Northern Europeans seem to get on very well together. How about the Irish? I would like them along, but maybe they would want to stay a while with the southerners, as they are making money from the current arrangements!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A, you are no doubt right, but at present there are some disputes between the FAA and EASA (not related to GA at all, AFAIK) and these are causing the FAA to be treated as a 3-letter word at EASA.
This is in turn creating some anti N-reg sentiment and proposals in the EASA "the European way is the only way" committees.
Hopefully it will pass....
This is in turn creating some anti N-reg sentiment and proposals in the EASA "the European way is the only way" committees.
Hopefully it will pass....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about the Irish?
We'd fall out with nobody, and continue on like nothing ever happened
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Having personally held an FAA ATPL for over forty years, with numerous jet, turbopropellor, and large piston type ratings, never once was I charged for a rating endorsement.
Is this fair? Should the non-benefiting taxpayer pay for the few to enjoy this boon?
I'm sure that if the direct user of aerodromes and the licencing, certificating and approvals system had to pay then the real cost of aviation in the States would approach European levels, less the economies of scale and the more pragmatic rule-making of the Feds.
The UK taxpayer through their elected representatives (long before EU and EASAland) held the view that the user should pay. The theory is that scarce tax money should go on genuine social need like a comprehensive health system and support for those less fortunate than ourselves who cannot help themselves.
Yes, there's plenty of scope for argument about the relative worthiness and inefficiencies in our social benefits system, likewise in the way in which our civil aviation is regulated, but the basic principle of user paying won't change.
There's a rumour (this is a rumour site, after all!!!) that the US are considering relieving the US taxpayer of the burden of paying for civil aviation and making the aviators (and their passengers) pay direct.
TheOddOne
It's only the Francophones in Geneve that seem to think the grass is greener
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- The US hypothicates fuel taxes (road and air) so the user can efficienctly pay (as compared to the UK that views both of these as general taxation measures)
- The US has PAX taxes for the user to pay
- Many localities view having air access (so freight, tourists, businessmen and holiday makers want to come to /live in the locality as a general benefit that they should financially support (sort of like parks)
- Finally, there is a view that aviation helps drive the general economy to be more productive and provides society wide wealth
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the US taxpayer as a whole pays for your type ratings and the rest of the FAA setup...
The FAA is thus, essentially, self funding.
Seems like a reasonable arrangement to me.
You folks in EASA-land are truly screwed, blued, and tatooed, and it is a damn shame.
In the USA, general aviation groups would never let this happen.
Even Dubya's ideas on user fees has been right and truly shot down by Congress, mainly due to complaints by GA/business aviation groups.
As it should be.
Switzerland?
Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!
Sam.
Sam.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Posts: 1,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford
Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!
The last time I checked EASA stood for the European Aviation Safety Agency so geographically speaking Switzerland (and the CI and IOM) could join the party.
However, these countries are not in the EU and are not subject to EU law. As EASA regulations are such EU law, could we see a situation where certain EASA 'members' are free to interpret the regulations as they see fit?
Do I detect another crock in the making?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Switzerland is in EASA, but not the EU - what happens if I register my aircraft there, and pop in every 90 days? It's 2+ IFR hours from here, also do my approaches at the same time?!
There is a long way to go before something becomes a regulation.
A LOT of people wil have their say, and most of them are far bigger (in political influence) than any of us.
It would be a grave mistake for anybody to make decisions on the basis of what is written here.
As regards ways of circumventing some hypothetical 90 day rule, there are loads of ways to do it. Anyway, anybody operating a reasonable size fleet can just rotate the planes through the EU, parking them outside the EU for the appropriate times. And any maintenance will be done outside the EU, obviously (so, who gains??). Then there will be obvious commercial schemes where you lease a plane for 90 days at a time. Rest assured that if "we" can think of a way around it, the lawyers who might end up drafting the regs will see it too and they won't bother.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A,
You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe.
The Litre is a natural measurment. The gallon was invented by the British for tax purposes who after you kicked them out made the gallon smaller so that they could get more tax. That is why the US gallon is larger than the UK gallon.
However, the litre of water will always be simply the volume of 1Kilogram of water no matter what the taxes.
Ironically, the winners in the no user fees are again the Europeans who will not have to pay for certificates because you do.
Regards,
DFC
You can bet that all the Europeans who have N reg aircraft and have FAA certificates are very thankful that every time you put a litre of fuel in your aircraft you are paying for their ability to fly round Europe.
The Litre is a natural measurment. The gallon was invented by the British for tax purposes who after you kicked them out made the gallon smaller so that they could get more tax. That is why the US gallon is larger than the UK gallon.
However, the litre of water will always be simply the volume of 1Kilogram of water no matter what the taxes.
Ironically, the winners in the no user fees are again the Europeans who will not have to pay for certificates because you do.
Regards,
DFC