Information on EASA FCL?

[Justiciar]

Still don't agree.

Annex III covers the basic requirements for pilots licensing under the EASA regime, but the bit of Article 7 I referred to excludes Annex III when there is reliance on licences issued by a third country, otherwise the 7th sub paragraph makes no sense. That is not to say that EASA cannot legislate to cover this area, the Basic Law simply allows for Europe to do what ICAO contemplates and render legal flights where the state of registration and state of licence are the same.

[Private jet]

IO540 et al, Apologies, i was referring to EU citizenship, i.e nationals (people the "human rights" legislation is applicable to). My poor choice of words confusing an already confusing situation! but i hope you can see the point i was alluding too.
I fly an M reg aircraft. There are, i believe, about 150 now on that register and several hundred pilots with validations, the majority using FAA ATP's. These aircraft are operated by some big multinational corporations and very wealthy individuals who will not take too kindly to this "political" nonsense if it costs them money and creates complications for operations which function perfectly well as they are. Flight departments should make their employers aware of what is potentially in the pipeline, and let nature take its course. A solution will present itself with a bit of influential lobbying, believe me. Hopefully this will apply to the PPL's too, if not thats why i suggested human rights legislation. Think outside the box.
Kind regards

[bookworm]

Annex III covers the basic requirements for pilots licensing under the EASA regime, but the bit of Article 7 I referred to excludes Annex III when there is reliance on licences issued by a third country, otherwise the 7th sub paragraph makes no sense.

Different Annex IIIs and different Art 7s! The Essential Requirements for Pilot Licensing are Annex III of the Basic Regulation.

Art 7 of the FCL regulations refers to Annex III to the FCL regulations. The latter pair are the "detailed regulations" you refer to in your post above.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[Justiciar]

But, as was said much earlier, the FCL regulations Annex III are about validation and conversion of foreign to EASA licences, none of which applies to third country licence being used to fly a third country registered aircraft, i.e. without any need for either validation or conversion.

Part-FCL says absolutely nothing about any requirement to obtain an EASA licence to fly non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if you happen to be a resident of the EU, as many have feared. That does not mean to say there are not more regulations in the wings.

[Justiciar]

Justiciar, are you the chap who was formerly a Barrister but is now a Judge?

Afraid not You are referring to His Honour Judge Tudor Owen, aka Flying Lawyer.

[bookworm]

Part-FCL says absolutely nothing about any requirement to obtain an EASA licence to fly non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if you happen to be a resident of the EU, as many have feared.

I don't see how you can read the draft reg and still say that. Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation covers a "non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if [the operator] happens to be a resident of the EU". Article 1 of the FCL cover regulation brings the pilots of these aircraft into the scope of Part-FCL. Article 3 of the FCL cover regulation says that these pilots must be qualified in accordance with Part-FCL, in other words that they must have an EASA licence or validation.

[youngskywalker]

I asked Brian Johnston, head of the Isle of Man aviation authority a month or so ago, if the EASA regulations were going to affect the operation of 'M' registered aircraft by FAA only licenced crews. He answered that he is not aware of any forthcoming rule changes and that they are not part of EASA anyway. He seems like a very decent, entirely trustworthy and straight talking chap so I'm inclined to believe him on this one.

[IO540]

I am sure he is right, as far as he goes.

The key will be whether an IOM residence will be classed (by EASA) as EU residence.

If not, M-reg will be "third country aircraft", just like e.g. N-reg, and their pilots may have to get EASA papers, as well as maintain the original FAA/IOM ones. Unless the owner/pilot lives in the IOM, in which case he will be fine.

If yes then he is sitting over a fantastic loophole

IMHO, the answer is no (because the IOM is not in the EU) so only IOM resident owners/pilots will be protected from EASA. And probably same for Jersey/Guernsey ones.

What happens about e.g. Norway or Croatia I wonder? Not in the EU so living there is not EU resident.

[Justiciar]

I don't see how you can read the draft reg and still say that. Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation covers a "non EASA registered aircraft inside the EU if [the operator] happens to be a resident of the EU". Article 1 of the FCL cover regulation brings the pilots of these aircraft into the scope of Part-FCL. Article 3 of the FCL cover regulation says that these pilots must be qualified in accordance with Part-FCL, in other words that they must have an EASA licence or validation.

Because that is exactly what the Basic Regulations say. You cannot compartmentalise regulations or sections of regulations. You have to have regard to the totality including Article 7 of the basic regulation and indeed to the treaty obligations of the member states, one of which is their obligations under ICAO. There is certainly a presumption in English law when interpreting statutes that the state does not intend to legislate contrary to its international obligations. So, it is unlikely that EASA intends to cut across international obligations in the way you suggest.

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL, but that is clearly not the intention of the Regulations, nor its effect. I recall a friend who flew for Cathay having to have HK ATPL because the aircraft were Hong Kong registered; likewise if you fly for BA, Air France Air India etc. That is logical, but I don't believe for one second that EASA intends that every pilot crossing its borders but working for a foreign carrier with foreign registered aircraft needs an EASA ATPL.

[IO540]

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL, but that is clearly not the intention of the Regulations, nor its effect. I recall a friend who flew for Cathay having to have HK ATPL because the aircraft were Hong Kong registered; likewise if you fly for BA, Air France Air India etc. That is logical, but I don't believe for one second that EASA intends that every pilot crossing its borders but working for a foreign carrier with foreign registered aircraft needs an EASA ATPL.

This was one of the objections raised very early to the EASA FCL proposals, and it would obviously show them to be a farce.

It was then suggested by various people that EASA would make an exemption for AOC holders, which would be easily done with a single sentence. This would have the effect of allowing AOC operators to carry on under ICAO provisions, while shafting non-AOC business jets and all the rest of GA below that level.

Yet, it appears that this proposal does not have such an exemption!

[Justiciar]

Yet, it appears that this proposal does not have such an exemption!

Which to me is confirmation that the whole proposal has been quietly dropped, because it would be virtually unenforceable. If this proposal is as some here have interpreted it then every pilot in every non EU registered aircraft would be unable to fly into any EU country unless they had an EASA licence. I suspect that the Americans would have something to say about this. It would of course cut right across all the civil air transport right in the Chicago convention, which enshrines the free passage of foreign aircraft across the airspace of another state for non scheduled service purposes. There is further more nothing in the Part FCL which anywhere draws a distinction between EASA and Non EASA resident pilots.

[bookworm]

If your interpretation ware to be correct, then every Delta Airlines pilot or Emirates Pilot flying in to the EU would need an EASA ATPL

Neither Delta nor Emirates are "an operator established or residing in the Community". They fall under Article 4(1)(d) of the Basic Regulation. Article 7 of the BR does not apply to them, and Article 1 of Part-FCL does not place their pilots within its scope.

The issue is about operators of foreign-registered aircraft "established or residing in the Community", covered by Article 4(1)(c). The Basic Regulation is structured with a clear difference between resident and non-resident operators.

As you yourself pointed out in post #19, the CC allows a state to reject foreign licences issued to its own nationals. There is, without doubt, a difference between residence and nationality, but I would be rather surprised if EASA and the EC had not sought a legal opinion on the interaction of the Basic Regulation with the CC.

[bookworm]

You might also find Opinion 3/2004 relevant.

22. Concerning non-commercial activities of third country aircraft operated by third
country operators, the Agency agreed with many comments received that it would
be disproportionate to establish Community competence just to address the issue
of foreign aircraft more or less permanently based in the territory of Member
States. This indeed can be best addressed by adapting the text of Article 4(1)(c) of
the Basic Regulation so as to submit aircraft registered in a third country used in
the territory of Member States by a person residing in a Member State to the same
requirements as EU registered aircraft.

Thus EASA seems to think that this can be done without violating international conventions.

[Justiciar]

That is about aircraft not licences! And so far they have not implemented any such proposals, but I agree entirely that the threat remains.

Re Emirates etc, you are right and I made a bad point. Too late at night after a good days flying!!

[BillieBob]

That is about aircraft not licences!

Quite. There is a misunderstanding here about the structure and inter-relationship between the Basic Regulation and the Implementing Rules. The rules relating to the operation of third country aircraft in EU airspace by EU residents holding only an ICAO licence do not and will not appear in Part FCL, which deals only with the rules relating to the issue and maintenance of EASA pilot licences, ratings and certificates. It is more likely that this area of the Basic Regulation will be addressed in Part OPS, the NPA for which has not yet been published.

Simply put, Part OPS will tell you whether you need an EASA licence, Part FCL will tell you how to get one.

[IO540]

It is more likely that this area of the Basic Regulation will be addressed in Part OPS, the NPA for which has not yet been published.

Hasn't it? I thought something had, a few months ago.

I too recall reading somewhere, a few months ago, that EASA said that it would be the OPS stuff which would enable it to control 3rd country aircraft.

Re Emirates etc, you are right and I made a bad point.

Not necessarily. There are now UK based AOC operators flying non EU reg aircraft. I did some research on this a long time ago and the DfT grants permissions for this provided no local based operators lodge an objection, IIRC. Emirates could well have an EU based operating company. All this stuff will have to be covered somehow.

The whole issue of "residence" is going to be very complex and - for many - quite impossible to resolve. For starters, anybody with a non-EU tax residence which is accepted by their local HMRC inspector is going to have a pretty good defence. Throw in some goodies like the plane being owned and leased out by a Jersey operating company and it gets better still. And ever since EASA came out with the 'operator' stuff it has been stated that N-regs, owned often by US based companies, will be yet another case.

To me, this stuff looks like it was produced by a committee which set out to boot out foreign reg ops (no shortage of people in Europe to fill the chairs on that one; go to any aviation related conference and pick out the aviation officials who have never flown a plane; any of them would do just fine) but the committee's deliberations were moderated by some slightly more realistic people higher up, but nobody has (yet) stepped back and looked at the overall picture.

[bookworm]

Simply put, Part OPS will tell you whether you need an EASA licence, Part FCL will tell you how to get one.

Part OPS will not tell you whether you need an EASA licence. It is quite clearly set out in the cover regulation of Part-FCL, which I will quote one more time:

Article 1
Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1. the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;

Article 3
Pilot licensing
Personnel referred to in Article 1 shall be qualified in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to this Regulation, hereon referred to as Part-FCL.

[bookworm]

I too recall reading somewhere, a few months ago, that EASA said that it would be the OPS stuff which would enable it to control 3rd country aircraft.

The OPS NPA has been published (NPA 2009-02), but as seems to be EASA's convention, did not include a draft Cover Regulation. The OPS Cover Regulation will be similarly worded and will apply to "air operators using aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation and personnel involved in the operation of such aircraft". Note that's the same scope as the Part-FCL cover reg.

[IO540]

The positive aspect of such an aggressive position is that it will cause a riot, and probably fail.

Some halfway proposition would probably get adopted, with a much worse outcome for pilots.

[Peter PanPan]

Very interesting thread, can anyone list the major changes with regards to FCL that will take place with EASA, listing bullet points for instance: IR conversion for instance...

I am actually surprised that this topic isn't really discussed in the professional forums. Anyone knows wether EASA will adopt a new format for the license? Credit card type with a picture maybe?