Information on EASA FCL?

[Contacttower]

I read and duly commented on the EASA FCL NPA when it was out for consultation last year, with particular interest in the EASA instrument rating and proposed FAA to EASA conversion proposals. I understand that according to schedule EASA FCL should become law in April 2012 but was wondering what information about progress between the close of consultation last year and implementation in 2012 will be available in the mean time?

I note the EASA website appears to be rather difficult to navigate and the only info I could find was the archived NPA that I have already read.

[BillieBob]

EASA's responses to 'stakeholder' comments are here and are probably the last we will hear on Part FCL until it becomes law. The Part Med NPA comment period is now over and the next event is EASA's responses to the comments on the NPAs of Parts OR and AR, due in September.

There are recurring rumours that implementation will be delayed beyond April 2012 but it is more likely that EASA will force things through on time to avoid losing face - again. There is a general underestimation of the level of blind arrogance that prevails among the bureaucrats in Cologne, who are actively lobbying the EC to avoid having to put future NPAs out to comment as it is seen as a complete waste of time and resources.

[David Roberts]

Just returned from a day in Cologne...

I have it on good authority that the EASA 'Opinion' on FCL (excluding medical aspects) will be published 25th or 26th August on the EASA website. The Opinion is the final 'technical' stage as this Opinion goes to the EU Commission for consideration by the Member States' representatives (i.e. part of the political agreement process, which may extend to the Parliament).

In terms of implementation the 'cover regulation' draft in the CRD published in April indicated that for private pilots' licences (ICAO compliant and the sub ICAO LAPL) member states will have the option under Article 14 of the Basic Regulation (216) to phase implementation over a period of up to two or three years (i.e. to 8 April 2015, depending on which licence) but this has to be agreed at Commission level. One the reasons is that Members States' NAAs (UK CAA in our case) have to prepare conversion reports for various national licences, other than the JAR PPL (A) and (H) which will convert to EU licences automatically. This will take time, and the CAA could not start this work until the text of the new EU FCL implementating rules has stabilised.

After this Opinion, the medical part, for which responses to the CRD closed 24th August, will need to be concluded at the techncial level this autumn, and later the work of FCL.008 group will have to have an NPA published for consultation. FCL.008 deals with the proposed new IR in particular.

The CRD on Parts OR and AR (i.e. requirements for training organisations) are indeed planned for publication in September (with a workshop Oct 20-21), but OPS is still on the slow burner.

[IO540]

David - any indication of when EASA proposes to ban the use of foreign licenses (e.g. a pilot flying an N-reg on an FAA license) in EU airspace?

[Justiciar]

any indication of when EASA proposes to ban the use of foreign licenses

Did you mean when, as opposed to if

What will be the IR conversion route under the new regulations - will it be harder than currently?

[IO540]

No IR conversion routes have been published.

So if a 20,000hr US ATP wants an EASA IR, he will have to sit all the exams and fly the full course.

The present "15hr" IR conversion route is not included in the proposal.

No, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

I was told by a very senior EASA official that they are playing this hardball game to drag the FAA to the table, to sign a bilateral license recognition treaty. IMHO this is grossly misguided, because the FAA already practically gives away its licenses to any foreigner wanting to fly an N-reg in its airspace, and thus sees no reason to sign a treaty to allow the use of foreign licenses in its airspace.

I predict a humiliating climbdown by EASA, at the last minute of course. But we may get some legal c0ckup...

[Contacttower]

No IR conversion routes have been published.

Really? I think if you turn to page 162/3 of the FCL NPA it outlines the proposals for the conversion of foreign licences. The table has a specific entry for PPL/IR (A).

The same table then reappears in the relevant Comment Response Document (thank you to the poster that pointed me to these) largely unchanged.

[IO540]

Sure - I know about the page 159-162 stuff. But I think you will find this has been dissected here and elsewhere previously and is not what it seems, once one reads all the referenced documents.

Can you work out what exactly e.g. an FAA PPL/IR needs to do to fly an N-reg in the EU?

I accept that you can call it a "conversion route" but it is not an easy one.

[Contacttower]

But I think you will find this has been dissected here and elsewhere previously and is not what it seems, once one reads all the referenced documents.

Was it discussed in a thread on here? I must have missed that. The NPA and CRD don't give much detail I admit but where in all the EASA publications does it lead one to believe that it's not what it seems?

I agree from the information available at the moment it is not clear exactly what an FAA IR has to do to fly N reg in the EU, but it would appear from a FCL point of view they have given thought to a conversion process. Whether or not one can carry on with one's FAA IR surely rests on whether N reg will still be allowed to be based in the EU; EASAs thoughts on this seem less clear...

Sorry IO540 I've just found the threads you refer to, I'll give them a read...

[IO540]

Whether or not one can carry on with one's FAA IR surely rests on whether N reg will still be allowed to be based in the EU; EASAs thoughts on this seem less clear...

That one at least appears easier to answer - which is Yes, provided it is a piston SE or ME, or a SE turboprop. ME TPs and jets are variously screwed; they will be able to remain long-term parked here provided an EASA MO gets variously involved in their maintenance.

Here

Regarding the 2008 FCL proposal, I would always defer to better brains than mine to work out the full interactions of the different bits. Very few bright people I know can work it out.

Many very bright people are absolutely convinced those provisions refer only to license conversions which is a completely different thing (and only relevant to people who want to fly EU-reg planes, typically IFR, but have only an ICAO non-JAA IR). And sure enough that is how it reads, superficially... this may have been intended by EASA because it is not in their interest to make such an aggressive measure too obvious too early on in the process.

[Contacttower]

Many very bright people are absolutely convinced those provisions refer only to license conversions which is a completely different thing (and only relevant to people who want to fly EU-reg planes, typically IFR, but have only an ICAO non-JAA IR). And sure enough that is how it reads, superficially... this may have been intended by EASA because it is not in their interest to make such an aggressive measure too obvious too early on in the process.

Yes having read it again I see what you mean, the tables in the NPA and CRD actually seems to refer to just the conversion of licences issued in the past by EU member states to EASA licences, not non-EU member licences. Leaving as you say a bit of gap in the regs if one wants to go for anything other than the one year validation. The document does cover the conversion of foreign licences, on the last page, but makes not specific mention of IRs.

Watch this space I guess...

The prospect of a bilateral licence agreement sounds interesting though.

[Justiciar]

I am finding it very difficult to get my head around the legal aspects of this. What EASA seem to be saying is that if you are a resident of an EU state you will not be legally able to fly say an N reg aircraft based in the EU without an EU licence. That seems to fly in the face of the ICAO conventions and the very basic world wide principle that if the state of registry of the aircraft and the state of issue of the licence match then you are legal. What then happens if the FAA licence lapses (either by expiry or by failure to have a BFR). The pilot is then entitled to fly an N reg aircraft on say an EASA licence within the EU?

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident? How exactly that will be enforced is anyone's guess as a simple ramp check is unlikley to throw up any illegality.

This does not just relate to N reg. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU! Nor is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. What of RA registered Yaks?

[IO540]

I am finding it very difficult to get my head around the legal aspects of this.

You aren't the only one. I posted the URL to the FCL proposal, with a detailed analysis, in the Bizjets forum, and nobody there thought it was anything other than license conversion, which would not affect an FAA CPL/IR flying an N-reg jet in Europe. I am sure they are wrong...

What EASA seem to be saying is that if you are a resident of an EU state you will not be legally able to fly say an N reg aircraft based in the EU without an EU licence. That seems to fly in the face of the ICAO conventions and the very basic world wide principle that if the state of registry of the aircraft and the state of issue of the licence match then you are legal. What then happens if the FAA licence lapses (either by expiry or by failure to have a BFR). The pilot is then entitled to fly an N reg aircraft on say an EASA licence within the EU?

In that case the legality would depend on FAR 61.3 which says you need a license issued by the airspace owning country, and JAA or EASA (which is a mutual validation system for nationally issued licenses) is not recognised by the FAA.

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident?

I think that's it.

You will have to have papers complying with the State of Registry, as well as EASA papers.

If your FAA papers go void, you are illegal worldwide (State of Registry requirement). If your EASA papers go void, you are illegal in the EU (airspace owner requirement, like e.g. carrying an ADF).

For a PPL that's not an issue, but it is for an IR, and more so for a CPL/IR flying a privately owned jet/TP for the owner.

How exactly that will be enforced is anyone's guess as a simple ramp check is unlikley to throw up any illegality.

Well, yes... I guess it will work by self-policing, which tends to be driven by the insurance being void if you don't meet the regs.

This does not just relate to N reg. The Isle of Man is not part of the EU! Nor is Norway, Iceland, Switzerland. What of RA registered Yaks?

I think M-reg pilots (most of whom fly on IOM validations of FAA papers, validated by the IOM CAA specifically for the particular airframe) will need to get EASA papers too i.e. 14 exams for a CPL/IR, etc.

As I've written before, the practical bottom line (assuming EASA pull this off, despite the number of wealthy jet owners which will be p1ssed off) is whether we will be able to see it coming, before the present 15-hr IR conversion route disappears. That route is the least-bad way to comply with this crap. For a PPL/IR, 7 exams plus 15hrs with an instructir, plus a checkride. You can do it as a package in Greece of 6k euros.

[bern444]

It just endlessly astonishes me reading all these threads. The huge amount of time energy and money that human beings use up making endless - and endlessly changing - rules about metal boxes that move from one place to another, whether on the ground or in the sky.......

B

[IO540]

It is basically Politics of Envy.

No safety case.

[Cows getting bigger]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention?

Oh, silly me, Eurpoe isn't a State, yet.

[Contacttower]

Thanks IO540 for the email, I guess there is little to do now that the comment period is over other than just wait and see. I read a lot of the comment by individuals and other organisations on the FCL documments on the EASA website and a lot of it was defending the rights of FAA licence holders in the EU however it doesn't seem to have made much difference to EASA's opinion.

I thought Jim Thorpe's article in PPL/IR on the matter was interesting and offered some hope, although again EASA don't have to listen to him...

[IO540]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention?

Unfortunately for Europe, ICAO does allow the airspace owner absolute jurisdiction over his airspace.

For example the UK CAA can stop an FAA licensed pilot flying here in FAA medicals, or even FAA licenses. And they are reported to have exercised this right, where somebody has p1ssed them off. But it is very rare.

If this was not so, none of the 200 or so countries (most of which are permanent military dictatorships, anyway) would have never signed up.

It so happens that civilised countries (Europe, generally, etc) have not exercised this right, and have allowed international aviation.

EASA is now back-pedalling on it.

Their overt position is that they want a bilateral FCL treaty with the USA. IMHO the USA will never sign such a treaty, in the current security climate. And why should they? They dish out 61.75 papers to anybody who wants them.

EASA pretends that "61.75" is beneath them; a full treaty is the only acceptable "European way".

It is however possible that EASA is trying to do a "Saddam Hussein extra mile to avoid war" job on this, i.e. they know the FAA will never go for it, so they can say "we did our best but the FAA did not play ball, so we had no choice...". These people are seasoned old foxes, as is obvious when you meet any of them.

[Justiciar]

Has Europe read Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention

It is Article 32 (b) of the Convention which is the operative one here, which says that:

Each contracting State reserves the right to refuse to
recognize, for the purpose of flight above its own territory,
certificates of competency and licenses granted to any of its
nationals by another contracting State.

Not wishing to stir things up, but it seems to me that however half baked the proposals are in practice, legally the EASA approach is supported by the Convention, though I am not at all sure that the EU is a "Contracting state".

If I held an FAA IR I think I would be biting the bullet, doing the exams and the 15 hour conversion before that route disappears!!

[bookworm]

Since under the same conventions the state of registry retains huge amount of jurisdiction over its aircraft, there is surely a risk that this would then be illegal under the laws of the state of registry. Or, are EASA saying that in effect you must be dual licensed to fly non EU aircraft inside the EU, but only if you are permanently resident?

EASA also has competence over the continuing airworthiness of aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU. A similar level of alarm was raised about this issue.

NPA 2010-10 sets out its proposals for dealing with this. As far as I can see, for non-complex aircraft the requirement is no more than what would be currently expected.

(More demanding requirements are imposed on operators of complex aircraft.)

T.A.201 Common requirements
1. The aircraft shall not be operated unless:
a. The aircraft is in an airworthy condition.
b. The operational and emergency equipment necessary for the intended flight is
serviceable.
c. The aircraft holds a valid certificate of airworthiness issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 8.
d. The maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with a maintenance
programme which shall comply with the requirements of Subpart C.
e. Any defect or damage affecting safe operation of the aircraft is rectified to a
standard acceptable to the State of Registry.
f. It complies with any applicable:
(i) airworthiness directive adopted or mandated by the State of Registry,
(ii) operational mandatory information, issued or adopted by the State of
Operator,
(iii) continued airworthiness requirement established by the State of Registry.

T.A.230 Additional requirements for aircraft other than complex motor-powered
aircraft registered in a third country used into, within or out of the Community
by an operator established or residing in the Community, and aircraft other than
complex motor-powered aircraft registered in a third country and operated by
an ATO to provide training outside the territory of the EU for non-commercial
purposes.

1. The operator shall ensure that the requirements of T.A.201 are complied with.
2. The aircraft shall have a type-certificate issued or validated by the Agency.
3. The aircraft maintenance programme required pursuant to T.A.201 point 1 (d) shall
comply with the requirements established by the State of Registry.
4. Aircraft maintenance shall be performed by a qualified maintenance organisation
pursuant to Subpart E or by a person holding a license issued in accordance with
ICAO Annex 1, as acceptable to the State of Registry.

Subpart C: Maintenance programme
T.A.301 Contents of the maintenance programme
1. The maintenance programme shall be based on maintenance programme
information made available by the organisation responsible for the type design.
2. The maintenance programme shall contain maintenance tasks and the intervals at
which such tasks are to be performed; taking into account the anticipated use of the
aircraft. In particular, the maintenance programme shall identify the tasks and
intervals that have been specified as mandatory in the instructions for continued
airworthiness.
T.A.302 Amendment of the maintenance programme
1. The ... operator ... is
responsible for the development of the maintenance programme and its compliance
with the State of Registry requirements.
2. The maintenance programme shall be amended as required by the State of
Registry.


Do we really have a reason to believe that the requirements for pilots on aircraft operated by those permanently resident in the EU will be more demanding?