Information on EASA FCL?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance validity requires the flight to be "legal".
I agree the flight would be legal as per ICAO (State of Registry) requirements.
But if e.g. you fly your plane via an airspace which requires the carriage of an ADF (or a pair of pink underpants) but you haven't got an ADF (or pink underpants) then you are not legal in that airspace.
I am not saying that I have bought into this "N-reg threat" but this is how it could work. Each ICAO member has sovereignity within its airspace, which is how e.g. the UK CAA can require the carriage of an ADF for all IFR in CAS, and this is applicable even to an N-reg Cirrus
I agree the flight would be legal as per ICAO (State of Registry) requirements.
But if e.g. you fly your plane via an airspace which requires the carriage of an ADF (or a pair of pink underpants) but you haven't got an ADF (or pink underpants) then you are not legal in that airspace.
I am not saying that I have bought into this "N-reg threat" but this is how it could work. Each ICAO member has sovereignity within its airspace, which is how e.g. the UK CAA can require the carriage of an ADF for all IFR in CAS, and this is applicable even to an N-reg Cirrus
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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....
What happens if United employed a Brit? I have quite often heard foreign nationals piloting their 777's....
The insurance side could be critical. Insurance companies will either be happy to underwrite EU based pilots flying Deleware Trust Company aircraft based in the EU with FAA licences or the will not be happy. It is only when one tries to get insurance that one will know the answer.
Equally, one would need some advice as to the insurer's ability to walk away from a claim even though they were in posession of all material facts based on a post accident view that you should have had an EASA licence. For an insurer that is not based in the EU I would have thought they wouldn't care, one based in the EU could well be made to care. [Note the opinion expressed is worth what you have paid for it]
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The problem is as follows:
If genuine operational control resided in the offshore entity, then what on earth is the point of this construct? Presumably this discussion relates to people on the forum who are presently N-reg (trust beneficiary) owner-pilot-operators and their need for EASA FCL licences from 2012.
If you transfer genuine operational control to some Trust lawyer in Delaware, then you no longer have an N-reg airplane you can use in any sensibe manner the way you do presently. If you can continue to do so, then the genuine operational control does not reside with the offshore entity. It's a sham that I believe would collapse in court in minutes. Perhaps one could fraudulently create an edifice of funding and instructions and purpose by which the "offshore operator" instructs you to fly to places that (coincidentally) are where and when you want to fly, but this sort of thing is seems so self-evidently silly and transparent to me that I am surprised anyone would believe, for a moment, it would be robust.
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).
brgds
421C
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't and won't be the infrastructure for checking this kind of stuff.
Airport staff and airport police are not that clever or organised.
In most of Europe, the paperwork machine hangs together just enough to ask for a declaration that you and your passengers haven't got tuberculosis.
I think that most proposals which would require a huge amount of new procedures to be deployed Europe-wide, just to catch a small # of private pilots, will be dropped because nobody will have the balls to push it through, into a system which isn't getting paid to do the extra work anyway.
Like that 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days. The detection and enforcement mechanisms would have been rather interesting. No wonder it got dropped. It also had some very easy work-arounds (which I won't publish here).
Insurance would be the principal issue.
Airport staff and airport police are not that clever or organised.
In most of Europe, the paperwork machine hangs together just enough to ask for a declaration that you and your passengers haven't got tuberculosis.
I think that most proposals which would require a huge amount of new procedures to be deployed Europe-wide, just to catch a small # of private pilots, will be dropped because nobody will have the balls to push it through, into a system which isn't getting paid to do the extra work anyway.
Like that 2005 DfT proposal to kick out N-regs after 90 days. The detection and enforcement mechanisms would have been rather interesting. No wonder it got dropped. It also had some very easy work-arounds (which I won't publish here).
Insurance would be the principal issue.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is already a standard ramp checking infrastructure and mechanism throughout Europe. The inspection form the CAA use I've seen posted somewhere on the web. You think the NAA staff across Europe who have less rule-making work to do won't be deployed in overseeing EASA regs?
What is the point of this discussion? Are we seriously debating that someone would ignore EASA regs on the basis they were unlikely ever to get caught?
brgds
421C
What is the point of this discussion? Are we seriously debating that someone would ignore EASA regs on the basis they were unlikely ever to get caught?
brgds
421C
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
421C - well, I think your view will ultimately prevail if the legislation is enacted as curently drafted. It is interesting debating the wriggle room but I think private owner operators using a Delware trust would have to go some not to be caught by the legislation. I think a group where a real effort is made to delegate some of the operational functions to off shore trustees might stand a better chance but I know of few N reg groups, although they do exist.
If the legisaltion is enacted it leaves me wondering how many FAA IR holders will go to the effort of converting their licences and if they do convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.
My guess is this one will ultimately ride on how much of a stink the N reg lobby can muster and whether the FAA has any good reason to wade into the debate.
There are a few EASA changes that come to mind that really do require us pilots to make it quite clear we are not prepared to put up with the impact they will have on GA. These include the potential loss of the IMCr, the dreadful EIR proposals, the inability of ICAO qualified IR holders to convert their licences to EASA IRs, and the loss of national lifetime licences.
Whether us pilots are up to the task I doubt so I guess we can only watch on in dismay.
I dont think any one of us supports these changes or believes they will contribute one iota to safety and in that much EASA will have failed in its prime directive. Shame on those who have more interest in political posturing that safety.
If the legisaltion is enacted it leaves me wondering how many FAA IR holders will go to the effort of converting their licences and if they do convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.
My guess is this one will ultimately ride on how much of a stink the N reg lobby can muster and whether the FAA has any good reason to wade into the debate.
There are a few EASA changes that come to mind that really do require us pilots to make it quite clear we are not prepared to put up with the impact they will have on GA. These include the potential loss of the IMCr, the dreadful EIR proposals, the inability of ICAO qualified IR holders to convert their licences to EASA IRs, and the loss of national lifetime licences.
Whether us pilots are up to the task I doubt so I guess we can only watch on in dismay.
I dont think any one of us supports these changes or believes they will contribute one iota to safety and in that much EASA will have failed in its prime directive. Shame on those who have more interest in political posturing that safety.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys been out of the loop for a few days so trying to catch up. Those who think the courts are there to decide whether something is a sham misjudge what the function of the courts are.
There are many legal setups which are that (shams) already but which cannot be challenged because they tick the legal boxes.
If someone wants to operate through a delaware company by means of a phone call and by doing so the operation ticks the legal box no court is going to say "this is obviously a sham so its illegal". This happens in many other fields perfectly legally.
None of us as far as I know are aviation legal experts so a lot of what we are saying is itself suspect.
More concern is the two camps here. The I am alright jack brigade because I have the relevant licences? (Some of us know some posters especially in the professional pilot forums who fit that bill and take a holier than thou attitude but who achieved their own licenses through shams) The others are people who have spent a lot of money licencing themselves up and have quite legally worked the FAA way in Europe some for decades.
To be told for no genuine reason that sorry mate at a flick of a pen you are no longer legal please find X amount of £1000s of pounds, loose your job and take off 6 months full time study is something which is hard to chew.
As a non lawyer I am pretty sure you cannot do that without recompense or without breaking the EEC human rights laws which are so strong within the EEC.
The only law breaking is by EASA requiring licences (what licences??? That itself is not clear to fly aircraft which are not in their jurisdiction.
Who is fighting our corner against this big brother attitude?
I quote Douglas Bader
" Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" i hope there are not too many fools in our ranks?
Pace
There are many legal setups which are that (shams) already but which cannot be challenged because they tick the legal boxes.
If someone wants to operate through a delaware company by means of a phone call and by doing so the operation ticks the legal box no court is going to say "this is obviously a sham so its illegal". This happens in many other fields perfectly legally.
None of us as far as I know are aviation legal experts so a lot of what we are saying is itself suspect.
More concern is the two camps here. The I am alright jack brigade because I have the relevant licences? (Some of us know some posters especially in the professional pilot forums who fit that bill and take a holier than thou attitude but who achieved their own licenses through shams) The others are people who have spent a lot of money licencing themselves up and have quite legally worked the FAA way in Europe some for decades.
To be told for no genuine reason that sorry mate at a flick of a pen you are no longer legal please find X amount of £1000s of pounds, loose your job and take off 6 months full time study is something which is hard to chew.
As a non lawyer I am pretty sure you cannot do that without recompense or without breaking the EEC human rights laws which are so strong within the EEC.
The only law breaking is by EASA requiring licences (what licences??? That itself is not clear to fly aircraft which are not in their jurisdiction.
Who is fighting our corner against this big brother attitude?
I quote Douglas Bader
" Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" i hope there are not too many fools in our ranks?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Sep 2010 at 10:29.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
EASA - Regulations structure
brgds
421C
(corrected in line with BB's post below)
Last edited by 421C; 29th Sep 2010 at 07:45.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 53
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
convert their licences whether there will remain any good reason for operating their aircrafts on the N reg.
I just bought an EDM-830 in the US and am having it fitted at the moment. Piece of cake. I dread to think of the hoops and fees under EASA.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(EC) 216/2008.
wasnt this lot concocted at the time EASA was almost disbanded, had its knuckes rapped and told to stop trying to re invent the wheel?
What parts are relevant, what do they actually mean legally and who is fighting to overturn this biggest SHAM of all.
Pace
wasnt this lot concocted at the time EASA was almost disbanded, had its knuckes rapped and told to stop trying to re invent the wheel?
What parts are relevant, what do they actually mean legally and who is fighting to overturn this biggest SHAM of all.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - I am not sure if AOPA is on the trail on this one - they certainly would appear to be with regards the IMCr and EIR.
It might be worth giving them a call and also perhaps AOPA USA would take an interest. Our Euro all things aviation MP Mr Kirkhope (Timothy Kirkhope MEP ? Working for You in the European Parliament) might also be a good bet.
An old fashion petition would also not do any harm if anyone can be bothered to kick it off. Even EASA might feel they need take note of 5,000 or 10,000 pilots opposed to their proposals.
It might be worth giving them a call and also perhaps AOPA USA would take an interest. Our Euro all things aviation MP Mr Kirkhope (Timothy Kirkhope MEP ? Working for You in the European Parliament) might also be a good bet.
An old fashion petition would also not do any harm if anyone can be bothered to kick it off. Even EASA might feel they need take note of 5,000 or 10,000 pilots opposed to their proposals.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.a daily record of happenings, as a diary
2.a record of the transactions of a legislature, club, etc.
3.a daily newspaper: often used in newspaper titles
4.any newspaper or periodical, as one dealing with scientific or professional matters
EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)
It is a daily as in Jour-nal or continuing "thought publications" NOT a regulatory document.
Can someone give a lead to the regulatory document not the journal which doesnt mean much.
Pace
2.a record of the transactions of a legislature, club, etc.
3.a daily newspaper: often used in newspaper titles
4.any newspaper or periodical, as one dealing with scientific or professional matters
EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)
It is a daily as in Jour-nal or continuing "thought publications" NOT a regulatory document.
Can someone give a lead to the regulatory document not the journal which doesnt mean much.
Pace
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC/216 2008 is a journal of EASA and not a regulatory document Each page is headed EASA Journal.
( Official Journal of the European Union)
( Official Journal of the European Union)
REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive
2004/36/EC
Article 70 also gives a clue to this fact:
Article 70
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
And you will note the final sign off after Article 70:
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Strasbourg, 20 February 2008.
For the European Parliament
The President
H.-G. PÖTTERING
For the Council
The President
J. LENARČIČ
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official Journal of the European Union
Official Journal of the European Union
The authoritative source of EU law
Official Journal of the European Union
The authoritative source of EU law
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm has helpfully done this already, see post #25 in this thread. The reference to Basic Regulation is document (EC) 216/2008 available here:
EASA - Regulations structure
EASA - Regulations structure
Reading 216/2008, this doesn't say that N-reg FAA PPL/IR pilots based here will need to get EASA PPL/IRs.
Last edited by IO540; 29th Sep 2010 at 18:05.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't have to read the 1000s of pages. You have to read Bookworm's short post which quotes and describes how:
Bookworm posted both the simple text you wanted and the links to the original FCL source. I added the link to the BR source.
The EU law simply isn't constructed in the way you want it to speak to you. It doesn't say specifically that N-reg pilots need EASA IRs, in the same way it doesn't say pilots of EASA-registered aircraft need EASA pilot certficates. The outcome stems from the chain of references Article 4 BR - Article 1 FCL - Article 3 FCL.
Let me put it another way. How could I convince the pilot of a G-registered aircraft that he needs an EASA certificate sometime after 2012? It's exactly the same set of references. He is captured by Article 4 (1) (b) of the BR, and the N-reg guy is captured by Article 4 (1) (c) of the BR.
If you read Part FCL, nowhere does it say "pilots of EASA registered aircraft must have EASA licenses". It refers to aircraft in Article 4 of the BR and the pilots of such aircraft.
brgds
421C
- Article 4 of the BR defines the scope of EASA regs to include FRA operated by EU residents
- Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion says it applies to the pilots of aircraft defined in Article 4 of the BR
- Article 3 of the FCL Draft Opinion says that pilots defined in Article 1 of the FCL Draft Opinion shall be qualified in accordance with Part FCL and Part Med.
Bookworm posted both the simple text you wanted and the links to the original FCL source. I added the link to the BR source.
The EU law simply isn't constructed in the way you want it to speak to you. It doesn't say specifically that N-reg pilots need EASA IRs, in the same way it doesn't say pilots of EASA-registered aircraft need EASA pilot certficates. The outcome stems from the chain of references Article 4 BR - Article 1 FCL - Article 3 FCL.
Let me put it another way. How could I convince the pilot of a G-registered aircraft that he needs an EASA certificate sometime after 2012? It's exactly the same set of references. He is captured by Article 4 (1) (b) of the BR, and the N-reg guy is captured by Article 4 (1) (c) of the BR.
If you read Part FCL, nowhere does it say "pilots of EASA registered aircraft must have EASA licenses". It refers to aircraft in Article 4 of the BR and the pilots of such aircraft.
brgds
421C
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 3,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry chaps but I just have to throw my little bit in to this argument.
Over the years I have earned:
An FAA ATPR (rated for the DC10)
A CAA (National) ATPL (which keeps my IMC rating current) and
A JAR ATPL
Why don't you just bite the bullet and do your IR with the CAA and get a JAR licence?
I came out of the RAF as a training captain with a Master Green instrument rating and 9,000 hours but none of that meant anything.
I had to take myself to Kidlington and do a very expensive civilian IR in order to get my civilian licence.
If I could do that (as all of us had to) why do you guys think that you are so precious or so very special that you don't have to do what it takes?
Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to beat the system?
Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.
I did.
Over the years I have earned:
An FAA ATPR (rated for the DC10)
A CAA (National) ATPL (which keeps my IMC rating current) and
A JAR ATPL
Why don't you just bite the bullet and do your IR with the CAA and get a JAR licence?
I came out of the RAF as a training captain with a Master Green instrument rating and 9,000 hours but none of that meant anything.
I had to take myself to Kidlington and do a very expensive civilian IR in order to get my civilian licence.
If I could do that (as all of us had to) why do you guys think that you are so precious or so very special that you don't have to do what it takes?
Why do you spend so much time and effort trying to beat the system?
Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.
I did.
Fly Conventional Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you just slightly worried about putting your expertise on the line? Who knows, as someone has already suggested, you might even learn something in the process.
It's the structure of the whole thing that annoys me the most, I've just started the JAA IR ground and I was dismayed to find out the that next exams session that can be booked is in December! Why can you only take the exams every other month at one place in the country? OK if you do ATPLs you can take them at Oxford/Glasgow etc but I don't want to take 7 extra exams that I don't need...
I probably will take them in two sittings so that is four months from now before I can start the flight training. For the FAA written I studied for a few weeks and then went and sat the exam at Farnborough, I was told the result before I left (rather than having to wait 10 days
). It just seems absurd that the process of arranging to take an FAA exam in the UK is easier than to take a JAA one. In a sense it doesn't really matter, I'm not working to a tight timetable but when I start something I like to do it in no more time than is necessary. It's not the volume of material as such that I have a problem with, although a lot does seem irrelevant, it's all this stuff like paying for distance learning, having to pay £60 per exam to sit them plus the time scale just seems ridiculous. The flight training on the other hand I'm actually quite looking forward to...
