EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[englishal]

Under present proposals, if they become law as they appear, and if you (the sole owner) live outside the EU, they should not affect you

is that EU or is that EASA member state???

If it is EU then I can immediately become a non-EU resident by going to "live" in Norway (I already pay considerable tax there)...

[proudprivate]

There are bureaucrats everywhere, but the US has a "can do" attitude which ensures that regulation does not defeat the objectives.

My conversations with the TSA and the US Immigration department didn't give me that impression. A lot of "cover your derrière" attitude, lack of transparency and inconsistent regulation between the FAA and the TSA.

Getting rid of the bureaucrats and their mutual job creation schemes is more difficult than scraping s**t off your shoes; they are certainly stickier

Although I wouldn't formulate it that way, it is certainly the case that parts of the civil service (be it in the UK, Belgium, Europe or wherever) and international organisations tend to perpetuate their existence far beyond their actual purpose or need. Back in 1996, the Belgian ministery of economics was still manning a 6-person call centre to "fill the information gap and help businesses prepare for the EU reforms of 1992"


One way to change this is to get more actively involved. In this case, writing to the Commission with concrete constructive proposals, speaking to Siim Kallas (who is relatively new on this job as transport commissioner), getting your MEP's into the discussion. By involving the relevant officials and politicians, a bureaucracy can be turned to your advantage. It is not a guaranteed success, but I've seen it work miracles in other domains.

[Fuji Abound]

What surprises me in all this is no one has bothered to kick off a No 10 petition. Yes, it would need a little careful word crafting, but 5,000+ signatures is a persuasive weapon.

[IO540]

is that EU or is that EASA member state???

I didn't know there was an EASA member state.

IMHO this has to be EU only, because each country affected will have to file differences under ICAO, and they will have to be forced to do so by the EU, and only the EU is able to do this (on its full members).

Lots of non-EU countries are affiliated in some way to the EU process. For example Egypt uses Eurocontrol to collect its enroute charges.

The EU operator residency is a load of bollox anyway, and your 'tax residency' example illustrates just one fine reason why it is bollox.

[BillieBob]

Sorry for asking but can you be 100% sure?

Yes

A while ago when I was looking at some non-UK schools who use UK CAA exam papers, I looked for a guarantee that their CAA will accept UK-sat exams. They all went strangely quiet at that point.

That is an entirely different issue. An applicant who has commenced training (e.g. taken the theoretical knowledge examinations) under the responsibility of one authority may only be permitted to complete the training (e.g. the flight training) under the responsibility of another under certain conditions as described in JAR-FCL 1.065(b). The requirement for one member state to accept ratings obtained in other member states is clearly laid down in JAR-FCL 1.065(c).

JAA doesn't exist anymore, AIUI.

Whilst it is true that the JAA Liaison Office has closed, the JAA still exists and, more importantly, all of the JAA member states have agreed to continue to conform to the existing Joint Aviation Requirements pending the adoption of the equivalent EU regulations. In particular, the UK CAA is bound by the ANO to conduct its licensing operations in accordance with the JARs and so a refusal to abide by the provisions of JAR-FCL 1.065 would be a breach of UK law.

is that EU or is that EASA member state???

EASA is an agency of the EU and does not have any 'member states', merely a surfeit of arrogant, self-serving bureaucrats.

[172driver]

is that EU or is that EASA member state???

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK EASA is the successor to JAA. Hence a lot of countries outside he EU involved/affected (perhaps infected would be the better word.....).

[IO540]

That is an entirely different issue. An applicant who has commenced training (e.g. taken the theoretical knowledge examinations) under the responsibility of one authority may only be permitted to complete the training (e.g. the flight training) under the responsibility of another under certain conditions as described in JAR-FCL 1.065(b). The requirement for one member state to accept ratings obtained in other member states is clearly laid down in JAR-FCL 1.065(c).

Assuming that e.g. a Spanish flying school says it accepts UK-sat IR CAA exam passes, what is the process of making sure they are not telling a porky?

AFAIK EASA is the successor to JAA. Hence a lot of countries outside he EU involved/affected (perhaps infected would be the better word.....).

It's a good point but I think if you look at Europe you see every country (except, as described, Denmark) allowing unlimited N-reg operations, and given there must be domestic pressure (FTOs and similar axe grinders) against this in all these places, it follows that the reason the operations are allowed is because of higher level political considerations.

And the only way EASA can push these considerations out of the way is by using the EU powers, and these exist only against full EU members.

Switzerland would be an interesting case. I wonder what deal has been done between the EU or EASA, and Switzerland, to get the EU to put in the 19-seat "complex" definition which is clearly there to support the Swiss-made Pilatus against Beechcraft.

[Pace]

What surprises me in all this is no one has bothered to kick off a No 10 petition. Yes, it would need a little careful word crafting, but 5,000+ signatures is a persuasive weapon.

Fuji

Totally agree! In other industries there would be 1000 people gathered outside the offices of in our case EASA, Demanding to be heard and bearing such a petition with the media arranged to cover the whole thing.

Pilots tend to be solitary individuals and spread far and wide so getting a focus to get such a petition signed would be almost impossible.

I suggested in a seperate thread that PPRUNE was such a focus point.
PPRUNE could have a section where petitions concerning matters which effect us could be placed.

Then we would probably get the 5000 signatures to a letter complaining about EASA and what EASA is doing.

My Thread on petitions hardly drew any interest! Apathy??? apart from maybe a dozen or so of us here who spout off, me included mainly through frustration nothing appears to be bringing us together en masse.

I think as AOPA USA said "united we stand divided we fall". My concern is that we will fall through our own apathy. Sadly an ex RAF pilot posted "If you are about to be raped you might as well smile end enjoy it".
What a defeatist attitude!


PPRUNE SHOULD PUT A FACILITY HERE THAT ALLOWS US TO USE THE FOCUS OF THIS SITE FOR AVIATION MINDED PEOPLE TO EXPRESS OUR WISHES IN PETITION FORM NOT JUST FOR THIS ISSUE BUT ANY ISSUES WHERE WE NEED TO BAND TOGETHER.

This whole EASA Fiasco makes my blood boil may the contents of a thousand asses fall all over them

Pace

[englishal]

EASA is an agency of the EU

While it may be, the wording in the doc posted earlier refers to "EU". However there are several countries and terratories in Europe NOT members of the EU but EASA members, for example Norway and the Channel Islands. Reading the doc it talks about:

Article 4(1)(c) of the Basic Regulation imposes to aircraft registered in a third country
used by EU operators the need to comply with the applicable provisions of the Basic
Regulation.

I have a british passport but could equally well reside in Norway or Alderney and hence no longer be an EU "operator" (assuming they mean me as the beneficial owner of the N reg, despite being "owned" by a US trust) and I can ignore all this EASA stuff. Who can prove where I am resident? It can't be by passport as one can still hold a British Passport yet be resident outside the EU.

Unworkable if you ask me.

[Fuji Abound]

Pace

the European Parliament has this to say:

One of the fundamental rights of European citizens:

Any citizen, acting individually or jointly with others, may at any time exercise his right of petition to the European Parliament under Article 194 of the EC Treaty.

Any citizen of the European Union, or resident in a Member State, may, individually or in association with others, submit a petition to the European Parliament on a subject which comes within the European Union's fields of activity and which affects them directly. Any company, organisation or association with its headquarters in the European Union may also exercise this right of petition, which is guaranteed by the Treaty.

It seems to me it would not be difficult to organise an on line petition. Get 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 signatures and it becomes difficult to ignore. We did it before with the IMCr petition to N0 10.

Something like this would be short, sweet and concise. The full petition could be further supported:

The UK and the other European Union civil aviation authorities accept pilot qualifications obtained in the United States of America. EASA has proposed legislation, which if adopted, will make it impossible for European Union citizens to fly in EU airspace on American licences. There is no safety related evidence to support the proposed legislation. IAPOA have described the proposed regulations as “disastrous” and have accused EASA of going “far beyond their safety remit”.

We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the European Parliament not to adopt the legislation and we do hereby petition the European Parliament to permit its citizens to continue to be able to exercise their existing rights to pilot an aircraft within the European Union on the basis of qualifications obtained in the United States of America without hindrance.

It needs a web site and not much more. Pilots could sign up on line, with their address and license kept confidential as appropriate.

[jxc]

I reckon the easiest way to get the signatures would be to send to all the flying clubs or airfields in guides and get put on notice board
Probably wouldn't take much more for a handful of people scattered around to take with them flying and try and pop into a few clubs at weekends and catch pilots there ?

Could one get a Romanian IR with their UK ppl ? they are in EASA i think.
i think cost could be cheaper

I do think alot not always a good idea !

[Justiciar]

Fuji: if I were an MEP reading that I think I would say "what's the problem?". Why shouldn't EU citizens hold EU licences to fly in EU airspace. I seems to me that it needs to be more subtle than that. Something along the lines of:

1. Almost every country in the world allows holders of third country licences to fly aircraft registered in that country in their airspace.
   
2. Almost every country in the world has an easy conversion process whereby third country licnces can be converted to local licences on a temporary basis to allow other nationals to fly a country's aircraft.
   
3. These rules are based on international conventions in place since 1944 and administered by ICAO
   
4. These rules facilitate the free movement of pilots and aircraft between countries at low cost, thereby supporting economic and sporting relations and trade between countries.
   
5. The proposals by EASA will remove the first right and severely curtail the second, adding huge cost to EU and foreign operators established in the EU whilst at the same time having no measurable safety benefit. Indeed the resulting reduction in flexibility of commercial operations may have an adverse impact on safety.
   
6. These rules if implemented will distort trade between countries, particularly the US and the EU and may reult in retaliatory measures.

[172driver]

Fuji et. al.,

I think you'll have to couch the wording in something that is safety relevant. That tends to get the attention of people.

The proposal as it stands is blatantly counterproductive to aviation safety, as it bars holders of any ICAO IR to fly in Europe and all but slams the door in the face of those EU pilots who would like to attain one. It therefore acts in a detrimental way to flight safety.

I have written roughly along these lines to my MEPs - no answer, but didn't expect one either.

[Pace]

Justiciar

I would to that add about the shear cost not only to commercial pilots who would loose their work and positions as well as having to find many 1000s of Euros to convert as well as the costs to thousands of PPLs who have been operating legally for decades.

PPRUNE is already a natural focus point a new web site is not until everyone knows about it.

Pace

[proudprivate]

We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the European PARLIAMENT...

From documentation I got from IO540 (see previous posts), it appears as if the European Parliament has delegated its powers in this matter to the Commission. Hence the petition should better be directed at the Commissioner for Transport, or the College of Commissioners.

IO540, did I read this correctly ? Or does a petition to the parliament also have merit here ?

The Lisbon Treaty forces the EC to make a legislative proposal, but only after 1,000,000 signatures. It has to investigate the applicability from 100,000 signatures or so...

[VMC-on-top]

Its easy to start a petition to number 10 ..........

Create a new petition | Number10.gov.uk

Over to you.

[Pace]

If Justiciar and Fuji and 10540 who are much more up to the legalities than me put one together we could put a link on all the forums so pilots can go there and sign it

Pace

[VMC-on-top]

I also heard a rumour that the decision has been postponed until at least December. I gather this was because the Germans have asked for more details on the economic impact of such a decision.

(Just a rumour, don't ask me where I heard it!).

[proudprivate]

Its easy to start a petition to number 10 ..........

Mmmmm. When you click on "start a petition" you get

"With a new Government in place a review is taking place of online services, including e-petitions. We are committed to improving the e-petitions process and are looking at ways of ensuring that it functions as part of a cohesive approach to public debate and transparent government. A full announcement on how we plan to use these and other services across Government will be made as soon as this important work is completed.
Existing e-petitions, submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. E-petitions that were live at the time of the election announcement on 6 April, when the e-petitions system was suspended, will therefore not be reopened for signatures. We are issuing responses to petitions that had exceeded the 500 signatures threshold as of 6 April 2010 and these can be viewed on the HMG e-petitions responses page.
We will welcome resubmission on issues of concern to the improved e-petitions system when it is launched later in 2010."

[IO540]

I also heard a rumour that the decision has been postponed until at least December.

Yes, I have seen a reply from an MEP saying it was postponed due to the impact on foreign pilots.

Gosh, this is really amazing. What possible impact could there be. Had to be something pretty small for this proposal to get so far and for nobody to have thought of it

Good news, anyway

I gather this was because the Germans have asked for more details on the economic impact of such a decision

That bit I did not hear. But Germany, along with the UK, is the biggest N-reg player in Europe. France is #3.

I am sure we will hear more shortly...