EASA maintenance proposals on N-reg etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA maintenance proposals on N-reg etc
EASA has released its proposals on maintenance of foreign reg planes based in the EU.
The relevant bit for small aircraft seems to be on page 9 of the PDF
The bit relevant to SE or ME pistons appears to be the very bottom row - if I understand it right.
ISTM that it hangs on the meaning of
>ICAO Annex I licence, or
>o Qualified maintenance
>organisation, or
>o ICAO Annex 6 maintenance
>organisation
Would anyone know what these are?
Currently, on N-regs, anybody suitably qualified (an A&P in the USA) can perform maintenance, and a freelance A&P/IA can sign off the Annual. That is how it works in the USA, and currently everywhere else.
I wonder if this means having to use a Company for the Annuals? Most people do that anyway but really only because most people don't have a hangar in which a freelance engineer may work.
I have never heard anything suggesting that a freelance A&P/IA is sub-ICAO.
Edit: It appears that "ICAO Annex I licence" means an A&P (or maybe an A&P/IA) and "Annex 6 maintenance organisation" means an FAA Repair Station.
The relevant bit for small aircraft seems to be on page 9 of the PDF
The bit relevant to SE or ME pistons appears to be the very bottom row - if I understand it right.
ISTM that it hangs on the meaning of
>ICAO Annex I licence, or
>o Qualified maintenance
>organisation, or
>o ICAO Annex 6 maintenance
>organisation
Would anyone know what these are?
Currently, on N-regs, anybody suitably qualified (an A&P in the USA) can perform maintenance, and a freelance A&P/IA can sign off the Annual. That is how it works in the USA, and currently everywhere else.
I wonder if this means having to use a Company for the Annuals? Most people do that anyway but really only because most people don't have a hangar in which a freelance engineer may work.
I have never heard anything suggesting that a freelance A&P/IA is sub-ICAO.
Edit: It appears that "ICAO Annex I licence" means an A&P (or maybe an A&P/IA) and "Annex 6 maintenance organisation" means an FAA Repair Station.
Last edited by IO540; 13th Aug 2010 at 17:25.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I think you are correct. There appears to be no additional burden over maintenance done in compliance with FAA regulations - if you are privately operated SE or ME piston, or SE turboprop.
This is much better than rumours circulating for the past few years, which amounted to the FAA maintenance having to be anything from supervised to duplicated by an EASA CAMO, which would have been a huge waste of money and probably unworkable since an EASA MO has to authority under ICAO to sign a release to service for a non EASA machine, and if you cannot sign a RTS then everything you do is legally meaningless.
King Air owners are not going to be pleased though.
For commercial use, the provisions are onerous but ISTM this is barely material since commercial use of foreign regs has never really been possible, outside the AOC environment.
EASA licensing proposals however still remain, which is that EASA licenses will need to duplicate the FAA ones (i.e. every FAA PPL/IR will have to get himself an EASA PPL/IR, and EASA is not proposing any conversion options whatever). However, bizzarely, when this came up in the bizjet forum (I posted it there) nobody thought this was real, and other people I know think the document is being misread...
This is much better than rumours circulating for the past few years, which amounted to the FAA maintenance having to be anything from supervised to duplicated by an EASA CAMO, which would have been a huge waste of money and probably unworkable since an EASA MO has to authority under ICAO to sign a release to service for a non EASA machine, and if you cannot sign a RTS then everything you do is legally meaningless.
King Air owners are not going to be pleased though.
For commercial use, the provisions are onerous but ISTM this is barely material since commercial use of foreign regs has never really been possible, outside the AOC environment.
EASA licensing proposals however still remain, which is that EASA licenses will need to duplicate the FAA ones (i.e. every FAA PPL/IR will have to get himself an EASA PPL/IR, and EASA is not proposing any conversion options whatever). However, bizzarely, when this came up in the bizjet forum (I posted it there) nobody thought this was real, and other people I know think the document is being misread...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at it a while ago when you mentioned it before, but forget where it is referred to now. Struck me as very difficult to enforce. You use your FAA on an ILS into an airfield in say Germany. The legality and validity of that is entirely dependant upon whether you are resident (domiciled, citizen?) of an EU state!!! What about if you are Swiss, or from Jersey (not part of the EU)?
IO: I will get down to Shoreham soon, I promise!!! Just in the process of negotiating for a share in a PA28 180, which I have to say I rather liked when I flew it recently - powerful enough, stable and cheap to fly. Sorry, thread creep.
IO: I will get down to Shoreham soon, I promise!!! Just in the process of negotiating for a share in a PA28 180, which I have to say I rather liked when I flew it recently - powerful enough, stable and cheap to fly. Sorry, thread creep.
....every FAA PPL/IR will have to get himself an EASA PPL/IR, and EASA is not proposing any conversion options whatever
1. Pass a written examination in Air Law and Human Performance
2. Pass the relevant skill test in accordance with Part-FCL
3. Fulfil the requirements for the relevant class or type rating
4. Hold at least a Class 2 medical certificate issued in accordance with Part-MED
5. Demonstrate language proficiency in accordance with FCL.055
6. Have completed at least 100 hours flight time as a pilot
It is true that there is no mention of conversion of an IR, although it would seem reasonable to refer to the requirements of Annex III A. in this regard. It is also true that the current wording seems to permit the issue of an ATPL with a Class 2 medical, but then it is only a draft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree re the PPL conversion but this is of little applicability since few people fly in the EU on an FAA PPL alone.
Most FAA paper usage is in the IR context. For this, EASA appears to offer no conversion route.
IMHO, therefore, it appears obvious that the real practical issue in all this is whether we will have visibility of what EASA will actually do, before the present ICAO IR to JAA IR 15-hr conversion route disappears.
Myself, I cannot believe EASA will pull this off, not least due to the difficulty (described above) of defining pilot residence. Obviously I am EU resident, but an awful lot of pilots move about, and there will be loads of ambiguous cases. Even tax residence is tricky (ask any clever accountant) and there exists no framework for enforcing this kind of stuff within the present international aviation system.
It is a bit like the 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days' parking. Nobody with a brain thought they will pull it off, but equally nobody could be 100% sure they won't pass some law...
Justiciar - anytime
I have just had a hard day flying an N-reg TBM850 so I can tell ya about it
Most FAA paper usage is in the IR context. For this, EASA appears to offer no conversion route.
IMHO, therefore, it appears obvious that the real practical issue in all this is whether we will have visibility of what EASA will actually do, before the present ICAO IR to JAA IR 15-hr conversion route disappears.
Myself, I cannot believe EASA will pull this off, not least due to the difficulty (described above) of defining pilot residence. Obviously I am EU resident, but an awful lot of pilots move about, and there will be loads of ambiguous cases. Even tax residence is tricky (ask any clever accountant) and there exists no framework for enforcing this kind of stuff within the present international aviation system.
It is a bit like the 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days' parking. Nobody with a brain thought they will pull it off, but equally nobody could be 100% sure they won't pass some law...
Justiciar - anytime
I have just had a hard day flying an N-reg TBM850 so I can tell ya about it
Myself, I cannot believe EASA will pull this off
The fact that there is no conversion route from an FAA IR to an EASA IR is of no more consequence to the bureaucrats in Cologne than the removal of the privilege of FAA instructors to instruct for JAA/EASA licences and ratings. If the Cover Regulation goes through as written, the only way that such a route could be opened is by changing EU law, and I wish you luck in that. I have spent the last 5 years beating my head against the brick wall of European bureaucracy and have finally given up - the old adage is right - it's nice when you stop.
The classic quote came from a certain senior EASA bureaucrat: "We are a rulemaking body - it is not for us to consider how to enforce the rules that we make - that is a task for the competent authorities." Welcome to the brave new world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all true but EASA is an agency of the EU Transport Commission, and they will do as they are told by them.
This is the route for lobbying which the bigger interested parties are doing all the time anyway.
So I don't think the outcome is cast in concrete - yet.
This is the route for lobbying which the bigger interested parties are doing all the time anyway.
So I don't think the outcome is cast in concrete - yet.
