Information on EASA FCL?

[trevs99uk]

The CAA have this on there website. At

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&...s_Sept2010.pdf

5. Non-EU licences - Validations and conversions
5.1 As proposed the Part-FCL regulation will make provision for the temporary validation of licences issued outside of the territory that is subject to EASA regulations - (i.e. outside of the EU Member States and those countries that have signed agreements to be bound by the EASA regulations and implementing rules). An example would be the holder of a licence issued by the FAA wanting to fly an aircraft registered in the UK. There are also proposed
Page 7 of 13
provisions for the conversion of such licences - i.e. their replacement with EASA licences. These proposed provisions are similar to those that have been applied under JAR-FCL. However, in the case of validations the regulation as currently proposed introduces a significant change in that a licence holder may only obtain a validation once, and it will be time limited.
5.2 The proposed validation requirements are set out in Annex III to the regulation for Part-FCL. The general requirements in that Annex that would apply to all validations according to this proposal are:
• the licence to be validated must be compliant with ICAO Annex 1;
• application may only be made to the NAA of the country where the pilot is resident, or where the operator they will fly for has its principal place of business;
• the period of validation will not exceed one year;
• no repeat validations are allowed;
• a validation can be extended once only by the competent authority (NAA) that issued it, to allow time for the pilot to obtain an EASA licence. The extension will be given if the pilot concerned has commenced training for an EASA licence. The period of the extension will not be excessive, taking into account the typical time taken by applicants to obtain the EASA licence that the pilot is training for.
At present, Article 62 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 grants a permanent general validation to all non-UK licence holders to allow them to fly UK-registered aircraft, provided that the flight is for private purposes. The European legislation will overturn this (and the ANO will be amended to avoid causing confusion). If adopted as currently proposed, Part-FCL will require the holder of a licence issued by a non-EASA country to have an individual validation issued by the appropriate EASA member NAA. However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

[bookworm]

@ 421C: I have to disagree with your first statement and partly with your second:
That part applies to G-registered aircraft.
...
"An aircraft" but not "G-registered aircraft" is mentioned and it directly refers to the licences concerned which are discussed in article 61:

Art 61 requires a licence from the state of registry for a public transport or aerial work flight. If the pilot has such a licence, then Art 61 is satisfied without reference to Art 62.

Art 62 describes the conditions for a foreign licence to be "deemed to be a licence rendered valid under this Order". It is not necessary for a foreign licence to be rendered valid in order to fly a foreign-registered aircraft, only to fly a G-registered aircraft.

[IO540]

trevs99uk

What do you think is the meaning of "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of that PDF?

The CAA appears to be saying that foreign reg pilots will need EASA licenses, but then they go on about Art 62 which as Bookworm correctly says doesn't apply to foreign regs because they are already covered by the State of Registry papers... so which aircraft reg does

However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

apply to?

I find this whole thing totally confusing.

[BillieBob]

The "Interpretation of Article 4" on page 10 of the PDF has nothing to do with aircraft registered in a third country - it is simply pointing out that an EASA licence is not required for Annex II aircraft unless it is a historic or ex-military aircraft or a replica thereof and is being flown for public transport or aerial work.

The only reference that I can find to Article 62 is in paragraph 5, which deals only with the validation of third country licences to fly EASA registered aircraft. There is nothing in the PDF relevant to the requirements for third country aircraft, which is hardly surprising as it will not be Licensing and Training Standards that has to enforce that aspect of the Regulation.

[englishal]

I can't see anything in these rules that would affect me....i.e. flying an N reg on an FAA certificate. If anything they might award me some sort of IMC replacement IR based upon my IMC which is based upon my FAA IR... ???

[421C]

Clearedils,

"where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo"

This rule relate to the relationship between the operator and the pax/cargo, not the operator and the crew.


brgds
421C

[421C]

so which aircraft reg does

However, EASA has advised that such validations should give the same privileges as an EASA licence, so that the licence holder should be entitled to fly an aircraft registered anywhere

apply to?

It applies to all aircraft registered anywhere. But, the key point is that "validation" is a one-time process, valid for 12months and still requires some exam passes and a skills test. It is of little practical value except for someone who absolutely needs the extra time to get the EASA licences.

brgds
421C

[BillieBob]

I can't see anything in these rules that would affect me....i.e. flying an N reg on an FAA certificate. If anything they might award me some sort of IMC replacement IR based upon my IMC which is based upon my FAA IR... ???

It depends who is considered to be the operator of the aircraft and whether they have their main place of business in or are resident in the EU. If we are talking about the private owner of an 'N' reg aircraft, the assumption is that they are also the 'operator' and, therefore, assuming that they are also resident in the EU, that they will need both an FAA licence and an EASA licence in order to fly that aircraft in EU airspace.

The problem is that EASA has not defined the term 'operation'. It defines 'operator' as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft", which is not a great deal of help. What EASA considers to represent 'operating' an aircraft may well differ from what you or I might think.

[BillieBob]

It applies to all aircraft registered anywhere.

No, it doesn't. In the context of para 5 of the PDF it applies only to EASA aircraft.

[IO540]

I recall the 'operator' meaning being debated a while ago, when that doc originally came out.

We seem to have come full circle but nobody seems any wiser.

At least they have dropped the airframe maintenance oversight for SE and ME pistons.

[bookworm]

The problem is that EASA has not defined the term 'operation'. It defines 'operator' as "any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft", which is not a great deal of help. What EASA considers to represent 'operating' an aircraft may well differ from what you or I might think.

I have a feeling that if challenged to provide a definition, EASA will say that this is up to the courts in the member states to decide!

[Whopity]

A few years ago I recall a pilot appearing in the Stratford Court accused of "operating" an aircraft without a valid C of A. The case was thrown out because there was no definition of "operator". Was it the owner, the club who rented it from him or the person they rented it to who was flying it?

[421C]

No, it doesn't. In the context of para 5 of the PDF it applies only to EASA aircraft.

Para 5 describes the EASA FCL Annex III "Validation" of 3rd country licences. Validations can be used to fly any aircraft requiring compliance with EASA FCL - ie. a UK one, as in the example in para 5, any EU registered one as you say, but also any FRA operated by an EU resident who needs to comply with EASA FCL. At least that's how I read it.

Put another way, I think the (formal or informal?) definition of "EASA aircraft" (as opposed to "EASA-registered aircraft") includes 3rd country aircraft operated within the EU by an EU resident?

brgds
421C

[David Roberts]

See Article 4 of 216/2008 - 'EASA aircraft' though not mentoned as such, but the scope is there.

[Fuji Abound]

"any legal or natural person, operating or proposing to operate one or more aircraft"

Even the definition seems at odds with the operator being the pilot. The pilot can only be a natural person whereas the definition clearly envisages the operator being a trust or a company and also a trust or a company that owns more than one aircraft.

I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator.

It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas but use crew that are domiciled in the EU but capture private pilots who are domiciled in the EU and operate their aircraft through a trust company. If the trust is properly established, operated and is off shore I suspect EASA will have a job to break the trust and convince a court that the trust is a complete sham with its strings being entirely "pulled" by the "owner" who is also the pilot. However I suspect this is the best they could come up with. Not only would it be unpopular, but possibly illegal to legislate against off shore commercial operators, so you are left with trying to find some "artificial" way of distingusiging these from UK residents who own their aircraft via an off shore trust.

[421C]

I still struggle with 421Cs concept that where a trust owns the aircraft, contracts for its maintenance, pays for its parking and insurance (and perhaps lays down conditions governing it use) EASA would argue that anyone piloting the aircraft becomes the operator

You miss an important nuance. I am not, as I have said before, saying that the pilot of an aircraft is automatically the operator under all and any circumstances. Obvioulsy not.

However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)

...then the EU resident pilot or group are likely to be deemed the operators of the aircraft, irrespective of what administration is off-shored to a trust or shell company OR the trust/company will be deemed to be EU resident in practice with its off-shore status simply an avoidance mechanism. Either way, the pilots need EASA licences.

It seems an attempt at a clever bit of word crafting to leave out commercial operators that are based overseas

It's not a "clever bit of word crafting". It's EASA exercising its powers to regulate EU operators but not 3rd country ones. There is an obvious and legitimate difference, however much one disagrees with their intent.

brgds
421C

[IO540]

Can somebody please assemble a clear bit of text, with URLs and supporting logic, which proves that regulations currently proposed or passed into law state that EASA licenses will be required for EU resident N-reg private pilots?

Once I have this, I can pass it by an aviation lawyer.

I think what is happening here is that people are reading little bits of proposals.

[172driver]

However, when the trust owns the aircraft BUT
1. the beneficiary owner is a EU resident pilot (or group)
2. the trust 'contracts for maintanance..blah blah' but, ultimately, the aircraft operation is paid for by that EU resident pilot or group
3. the EU resident pilot (or group) decide when and where to fly it (within whatever constraints they have put into the trust, plus the normal insurance and operational constraints)

421C I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, but I'm pretty sure that you can set up a structure whereby the 'operational control' resides with some non-EU based trust or company. The problem I can see is the closer you get to a watertight structure, the closer you also get to an AOC or other CAT situation.

[IO540]

If this type of rule did become law, it is certain (as bookworm says) that the interpretation would be with the local courts. After all, EASA won't prosecute anybody; it will be up to each local CAA.

The tough bit would not be ramp checks (which will always be meaningless, due to the obvious impossibility of on the spot verification of "residence" etc). It would be validity of one's insurance.

[englishal]

I don't see how one's insurance would be invalid if one were say flying an N reg using an FAA ticket which is a perfectly legal combo....as per United 935 from LHR to LAX.

What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....