Information on EASA FCL?

[421C]

It is actually a very good point that the licenses EASA is apparently requiring would not be legal by State of Registry rules (e.g. FAA 61.3) to fly the same aircraft.

What do you mean "would not be legal"? Part 61 tells you about the requirements and privileges of US pilot certificates. Where does it say you may not also hold an EASA certificate?

Part 91.703 goes on to say (my underline)

(a) Each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside of the United States shall—
.......
(2) When within a foreign country, comply with the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there in force"

So on what basis will EASA determine what EASA licenses are required?

Err, on the basis of the EU law already enacted, that Operators of FRA resident in the EU must comply with EASA regs.

brgds
421C

[Pace]

No-one will really know I guess until this is tested in case law. Good luck to anyone who thinks the "operator loophole" is a safe and robust construct.....

421C

The biggest flaw with what EASA are attempting is that they are trying to legislate on pilot requirements on aircraft where EASA licences have no Bearing.
I am licenced by the FAA to Fly FAA aircraft around the world there are ICAO Rights to do so and have done so to faraway places like the USA, South Africa and the far East.

Just to show you how discriminatory this is I have ferried before. I could accept employment as a European Pilot to ferry a jet from the USA to say Thailand. I would be denied that income by the fact that I could no longer fly over Europe based soley on on my nationality it could read colour or creed.

EASA are demanding that I hold licenses to fly an aircraft that they hold no jurisdiction over. Infact to use EASA licences to do so would in itself be illegal.
That begs the question what licences could they require me to hold to fly a private N reg Jet?

So it again comes down to blatant discrimination which thankfully are well covered in our European Courts.

They are in reality saying that I must hold licences which are illegal on an aircraft I am fully entitled to fly hold no bearing on that aircraft and for NO other reason than I am European My equal Brothers in America are allowed to fly in European airspace but I am not. THAT IS BLATANT DISCRIMINATION.

I then ask the question what would their arguement be in court for attempting to instigate these requirements? Think about it.

This is another flawed attempt by some EASA pen pusher in an office who hasnt really thought out what he is attempting to do.

Such a move is so flawed and riddled it would not hold up in the courts.

Pace

[421C]

EASA are demanding that I hold licenses to fly an aircraft that they hold no jurisdiction over. Infact to use EASA licences to do so would in itself be illegal

They do have jurisdiction over EU operators. It is not illegal to hold an EASA licence in addition to an FAA one when flying an N-reg airplane.

I am licenced by the FAA to Fly FAA aircraft around the world there are ICAO Rights to do so.

I haven't read my ICAO for a while, but the rights which are enshrined in treaty are relatively narrow, and many apply to CAT rather than GA, and also concern overflight and tech stops. There is nothing in ICAO which prevents a particular country imposing whatever requirements it wants on its domestic operators. In fact, (AFAIK) an ICAO country is entitled to deny its citizens the right to exercise the privileges of another countries pilot qualifications in its own airspace.

So it again comes down to blatant discrimination which thankfully are well covered in our European Courts.

They are in reality saying that I must hold licences which are illegal on an aircraft I am fully entitled to fly hold no bearing on that aircraft and for NO other reason than I am European My equal Brothers in America are allowed to fly in European airspace but I am not

I absolutely understand your intense frustration that the profession you have been pursuing under the excellent and safe regulation of the FAA system should be burdened with this nonsense. But, I hate to say it, this "discrimination" idea is a lost cause. There are a vast number of regulations which 'discriminate' between the non-EU resident professional and the resident. The obvious example being doctors, lawyers, accountants, but also, at a more trivial level, car drivers and boat skippers. Aviation, of course, is different to the extent that it's inherent that a US pilot would operate a trip into Europe (and vice-versa) in a way that, for example, a Doctor wouldn't find himself treating patients cross-border. But the EASA regs are not regulating US pilots per se, or US operators. They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.

The principle that an EU operator should abide by EU regulations is not going to collapse under some human rights legal case. The entire EU system is built upon a vast edifice of EU regulations....

Vent your frustration here amongst fellow pilots by all means, but I'd be signing up for one of those JAA ATPL theory courses at the same time....

brgds
421C

[IO540]

My point was that an EASA license is probably not going to meet state of registry requirements i.e. 61.3.

For example an EASA license issued in Germany will be good for an N-reg in German airspace but won't be any good for the same N-reg in UK airspace. There are two FAA OCC opinions out on this already so I consider this old chestnut done and dusted.

The EU is not doing anything illegal requiring this, in the same way as it would not be illegal to require pilots to wear pink underpants while in EU airspace, but it is bizzare that licenses will have to be obtained which are simply inappropriate for the aircraft under ICAO (state of registry) requirements.

They may as well require the pilot to become a chartered accountant... it's about as relevant.

[Pace]

They are regulating EU operators, which they are legally entitled to do.

421C The obvious would be an IOM with operating company based there in some form or other?
But regulating operators is very different to requiring pilots to hold licences that bear no relevance to the aircraft being flown and which the pilot is already fully licenced to fly.
All I know is this has been attempted many times before and has fallen flat on legalities I see no reason why this should be any different.
I am NO lawyer and I presume neither are you so we are all guessing to a certain extent.
I cannot see your comparisons quoted above as an EASA licence cannot in law be relevant to an FAA aircraft but hey ho I hope you are not correct as this would be another example of NON SENSE politics. Did I read that the UK government had earmarked 130 UK quangos for obliteration pity EASA was not got rid of as nearly happened for its equally stupid attempts before.

Addendum

I have a co pilot who holds FAA licences and an SIC who joined me from meeting up in these forums and is now a very good friend.
His concen is that he went the FAA way because he failed his JAA class 1 medical on his eyesight but passed the FAA medical does anyone know what his position would be if this rubbish hits the light of day.

Pace

[S-Works]

For example an EASA license issued in Germany will be good for an N-reg in German airspace but won't be any good for the same N-reg in UK airspace. There are two FAA OCC opinions out on this already so I consider this old chestnut done and dusted.

Nope. JAA licences were licences issued by NAA in accordance with a set of rules. If you followed the rules to the letter you were a member of the mutually recognised club but nonetheless each licence had a separate state of issue.

An EASA licence will be a single EUROPEAN licence subject to a single European equivalent of the ANO. Very much in the same was as an FAA certificate is federal certificate instead of a state certificate.

So a single EASA licence has true European coverage.

It is this very thing that is preventing the adoption of an IMCr as an example, it is either an all or nothing situation and is the reason EASA are able to mandate an EASA licence for operation in it's airspace.

[421C]

IO,
Your post #125 boils down to the fact you think the EASA requirements are silly. Fair enough. I think it's silly too. Doesn't mean it's not happening.

Pace,
The point on medicals is a serious one. The answer is I don't know. It may be that your friend will need to have EASA medicals in order to work for a European operator. I would suggest he gets in touch with a top AME who is close to the process and understands the regs well. These names must float around the pro pilot community. There may be conversion options which are better done asap (again, I simply don't know).

On the plus side, EASA Part-MED has some relaxation of the worst restrictions of JAR Medical regs. However, how these may impact your friend, again, I don't know.

brgds
421C

[englishal]

I'm not worried, it will never happen. We'll still be flying N reg's on FAA certificates for may years to come....

[S-Works]

I'm not worried, it will never happen. We'll still be flying N reg's on FAA certificates for may years to come....

Better pull your head out the sand then and take a look at what is contained in the regulation that ALREADY exists. This is not a consultation....

[youngskywalker]

PACE

I was in the same situation as your colleague and now hold a full JAA Class one medical.

pm me for more info if you wish...

[DLT1939]

On a lighter note, have you seen EASA's mission statement....

"We're not happy till you're not happy."

[Sir George Cayley]

I think the phrase "We're all doomed" seems applicable

Sir George Cayley

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by bose-x

An EASA licence will be a single EUROPEAN licence subject to a single European equivalent of the ANO. Very much in the same was as an FAA certificate is federal certificate instead of a state certificate.

Is this actually true, the NAAs are going to no longer exist? Or is it that EASA defines the structure and then the States need to pass implementing legislation and operate as the local office for those specific areas EASA has competence over.

I thought it was the second. In which case, it is unlikely to change the FAA's view that the UK is a different state from Germany or from Slovinia.

[Sir George Cayley]

It will hinge on how ICAO view EASA. At the moment each state that is a signatory to the Chicago Convention has a seat on at the Assembly. Memebers of ICAO get to be on the Air Navigation Commission.

EASA want a seat on the ANC but ICAO will only entertain this if all the AN members sub-ordinate to EASA resign.

You already know the answer don't you?

But one day EASA will get a toe hold.

Sir George Cayley

[IO540]

Surely the EU has the power to force them to resign?

The EU can now force any member state to adopt any law it drafts (within limits e.g. military matters are outside its remit).

[Cows getting bigger]

Didn't the UK have a referendum on Europe?

[BillieBob]

Is this actually true, the NAAs are going to no longer exist? Or is it that EASA defines the structure and then the States need to pass implementing legislation and operate as the local office for those specific areas EASA has competence over.

EASA sees itself solely as a rulemaking body and considers that it is the function of NAAs to implement and enforce the rules that it makes. The NAAs will, in practical terms, be simply local agencies of EASA, much as the FSDOs are the local agencies of the FAA.

Since the FCL Implementing Rules are being enacted by Regulation, rather than by Directive, there is no need for the UK provincial government to enact implementing legislation. As soon as the enabling Regulation enters into force (currently scheduled for 8 April 2012) it applies in the UK in its entirety. Some (time limited) derogation is permitted in a few areas, mainly concerning the implementation of the new licences (e.g. LAPL, BPL, SPL, etc.).

[robin]

Interestingly, yesterday I received a letter via my MP about the CAA and EASA and the way GA is being affected by legislation originates from EASA.

The writer denies absolutely that they are subordinate to EASA. Actually they deny pretty much everything - GA is not suffering and all is right with the world.

[Justiciar]

There is an awful lot of hot air being generated on this subject, whereas the focus should be on the fact that EASA are doing what the Commission told them not to do, which is reinvent the wheel.

Just to be clear, it is perfectly legal for a state to limit the privileges of a third part licence held by its own nationals. That is in the Treaty. Likewise, it is perfectly legal to apply EU/EASA rules to third country operators established in the EU. Again, I don't think there is anything novel about this. It happens already.

The current PART FCL do not limit the use of third country licences by nationals of the EU flying non EU aircraft, though such rules may appear. These rules are not yet law and there is a need for everyone to put the case as strongly as possible through their MEPs and directly. They impose unnecessary regulation and cost on an industry worth EURO millions to the economy of the EU at a time when growth is faltering. There is no demonstrable benefit from some of the changes, such as the medical requirements. The rules seem to effectively close the door on anyone from a non EU state wishing to visit Europe and fly whilst they are here, which puts them in opposition to almost every other state in the world, which has a temporary validation or conversion process in place.

[Clearedils]

Becoming a very interesting thread now, and agree with IO540 that the Bizjet forum and (some) operators just seem to be ignoring the proposals and some regulations already in force, and the private flyers seem most bothered?

Mainly a reply and follow up to post #76 to #78 (sorry, been away for a while)

@ 421C: I have to disagree with your first statement and partly with your second:
That part applies to G-registered aircraft.
Article 62 of the ANO just states "the flight crew of an aircraft" and
"paragraph (2) applies to any licence which authorises the holder to act as a member of the flight crew of an aircraft and is granted:
(a) under the law of a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom but which is not a JAA licence; or
(b) under the law of a relevant overseas territory.
AND:
(2) Subject to paragraph (4), for the purposes of this Part, such a licence is, unless the CAA gives a direction to the contrary, deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order.

"An aircraft" but not "G-registered aircraft" is mentioned and it directly refers to the licences concerned which are discussed in article 61:

Requirement for appropriate licence to act as member of flight crew of aircraft
registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
61
A person must not act as a member of the flight crew which must by or under this Order be carried in an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom unless:
(a) in the case of an aircraft flying for the purpose of commercial air transport, public transport or aerial work, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or the State of the operator; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft on a private flight, that person is the holder of an appropriate licence granted or rendered valid under the law of the country in which the aircraft is registered or under this Order, and the CAA does not give a direction to the contrary.

"There's nothing in the ANO that stops a foreign-registered aircraft operating in the UK with a paid crew that hold licences from the state of registry only"

ANO Article 223 prohibits foreign registered aircraft to be involved in operations where valuable consideration is given (with the exception of operators operating under the rules of the Chicago convention, such as airlines or AOC holders or other permission holders):

PART 29 PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND AERIAL WORK BY FOREIGN REGISTERED
AIRCRAFT
Restriction on carriage for valuable consideration in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom:
223 (1) An aircraft registered in a Contracting State other than the United Kingdom, or in a foreign country, must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo unless it complies with paragraph (2) or is exempt from this paragraph under paragraph (3).

(2) This paragraph is complied with if the operator or the charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted a permission by the Secretary of State under this article and any conditions subject to which such permission may be subject are complied with.

(3) An aircraft is exempt from the requirement to comply with paragraph (1) if it is exercising traffic rights permitted by Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24th September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community(a).

(4) No operator or charterer of an aircraft which is required to comply with paragraph (2) may hold itself out as a person who may offer to take on board or discharge any passenger or cargo in the United Kingdom for valuable consideration except in accordance with:
(a) a permission granted under this article; and
(b) any conditions to which such a permission may be subject.

(5) Paragraph (4) does not apply to any person who reasonably believes that they will hold such a permission by the time the relevant flight is made.

I must be missing something here as there are loads of pilots/operators flying foreign reg a/c around where there is valuable consideration involved?