EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest, have you had lot's of job offers in the EU Airline Industry with your JAA licence then ? Does it open doors for you ? It's a genuine question, no malice intended as I just wondered if you had.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad-jock
I used to have a high opinion of you but I cannot believe what I am reading.
What bollox. I know loads of American owner pilots and not one of them pays a percentage property tax (e.g. 5%) on the plane he owns. Ownership would be impossible if one had to pay that kind of tax on the fact of simply owning an asset.
So you got your fingers burnt on IR35... Let me tell you something. I've been in business (electronic manufacturing) since 1978 and so I happen to know a bit about personal and corporate taxation. It was always been illegal to do what you were doing - basically what individual computer programmers were doing all those years which was working for one company, writing software on the company's premises using the company's equipment. The Inland Revenue line between "self employed" and a "real business" has always been there. The only reason it went on all those years was because the Revenue was totally disorganised. In the early 1980s my business used to hand over PAYE (directors and employees) up to a year late - the Revenue never chased it. Try that today and they would have you dissolved.
Eventually they got organised on all fronts and - among other targets - decided to go after all those who worked for just one company, etc - who were basically employees in all but name, but did not pay NICs by living off dividends, plus were allowed to offset the travel to their main (only, in fact) place of work against their income. The initiative was called IR35.
And the work-around for it has always existed and has always been the same: run a real proper business, with multiple customers, all at arm's length. Nobody got done under IR35 who had multiple customers, no employment contract, etc. You can still live off divis, pay no NICs, claim back VAT on business items, etc. You just need to have a real business with real customers... The IR35 people did not have real businesses; they were just working for one company, drove to work every day, Mon-Fri, sat in a chair provided by the company, typed up the code on a terminal provided by the company, wrote the docs on WP software paid for and licensed to the company, etc, and the situation never met the "real business" test. Not even in 1978.
So there is no comparison between IR35 practices (which were always illegal) and EU-based foreign reg aircraft (which was always legal - in the civilised world).
You also know very little about aircraft maintenance and general operating costs. You may work as a hired CPL/IR pilot but you don't pay the bills for the plane. If you did that for N-regs and for G-regs, both non-AOC, you would not write half the stuff you write.
You should get a job in Brussels. All the expat Brits out there, all the failed ISO9000 quality managers (and it takes a lot of dedication to be a failed ISO9000 quality manager) working at EASA, ripping off FAA regs into EASA regs without even renumbering the paragraphs half the time, would welcome this politics of envy approach with open arms. The idea that policy should be based on evidence (safety data, in this case) is a completely alien idea to them.
Incidentally I do pay at least 5% of the market value of my aircraft in aviation taxes, every year, as do most owners I can think of. Do the sums on all the taxes involved. And I suggest you do some research on US taxation, too.
Nearly forgot to deal with this piece:
It is true that most of the 3rd World bans foreign regs based there permanently. But there is one little detail...... most of them do not have their own (meaningfully functioning) CAA, so they accept FAA licenses and FAA certification.
But they generally make you pay for putting a plane on their own reg... with bribes, more bribes, payoffs, sweeteners, loads of paperwork which you have to brown-nose to get rubber-stamped, and you better have a turboprop because if it is just a piston, the engine will be corroded in the time it takes them to get the paperwork issued.
Most of the 3rd World officialdom job creation schemes make EASA look like Ryanair.
This is hardly a standard which a civilised country should aspire to. The US system is above board in every respect.
Also try to be a lawyer for 5 minutes and think of how one can stop long term parking on aircraft. It's a damn difficult concept to define clearly enough to stand up under any real judicial system.... which is why it is done only in places which don't have one! Basically, if you try it in some "country" you get increasing hassle flying to places. Nothing you can put a finger on, because it isn't clearly illegal. Bribes can take care of it, too.
Like I say, this is hardly a standard which a civilised country should aspire to
I used to have a high opinion of you but I cannot believe what I am reading.
But if you think that your normal N reg owner is paying $1000 a year on a $20000 C152 suddenly the costs are comparable. And $500k a year on a GV would mean it would be cheaper on a G reg even with putting it on a G reg AOC.
I to used to be a IR35 company director, which I might add is how I payed to become a pilot. The loophole got closed and a load of us went back to paying National Insurance, PAYEE and all the other things 99% of the other tax payers of the UK did. Quite a few directors had a nasty suprise up to 7 years later where all the processes we had been assured were all legal and correct came falling down and 5-6 figure tax bills were issued. Thankfully I had got very uneasy with talk about soft currency loans and other such ideas and didn't get stung. We had our good times with the loophole it got stopped we moved on.
Eventually they got organised on all fronts and - among other targets - decided to go after all those who worked for just one company, etc - who were basically employees in all but name, but did not pay NICs by living off dividends, plus were allowed to offset the travel to their main (only, in fact) place of work against their income. The initiative was called IR35.
And the work-around for it has always existed and has always been the same: run a real proper business, with multiple customers, all at arm's length. Nobody got done under IR35 who had multiple customers, no employment contract, etc. You can still live off divis, pay no NICs, claim back VAT on business items, etc. You just need to have a real business with real customers... The IR35 people did not have real businesses; they were just working for one company, drove to work every day, Mon-Fri, sat in a chair provided by the company, typed up the code on a terminal provided by the company, wrote the docs on WP software paid for and licensed to the company, etc, and the situation never met the "real business" test. Not even in 1978.
So there is no comparison between IR35 practices (which were always illegal) and EU-based foreign reg aircraft (which was always legal - in the civilised world).
You also know very little about aircraft maintenance and general operating costs. You may work as a hired CPL/IR pilot but you don't pay the bills for the plane. If you did that for N-regs and for G-regs, both non-AOC, you would not write half the stuff you write.
You should get a job in Brussels. All the expat Brits out there, all the failed ISO9000 quality managers (and it takes a lot of dedication to be a failed ISO9000 quality manager) working at EASA, ripping off FAA regs into EASA regs without even renumbering the paragraphs half the time, would welcome this politics of envy approach with open arms. The idea that policy should be based on evidence (safety data, in this case) is a completely alien idea to them.
In fact I might send an email to my MP and Euro MP suggesting this.
Nearly forgot to deal with this piece:
which can be used nowhere else in the world to bypass local regulations. Actually thats un-true there is a fleet of N reg aircraft in Saudi, anywhere else?
But they generally make you pay for putting a plane on their own reg... with bribes, more bribes, payoffs, sweeteners, loads of paperwork which you have to brown-nose to get rubber-stamped, and you better have a turboprop because if it is just a piston, the engine will be corroded in the time it takes them to get the paperwork issued.
Most of the 3rd World officialdom job creation schemes make EASA look like Ryanair.
This is hardly a standard which a civilised country should aspire to. The US system is above board in every respect.
Also try to be a lawyer for 5 minutes and think of how one can stop long term parking on aircraft. It's a damn difficult concept to define clearly enough to stand up under any real judicial system.... which is why it is done only in places which don't have one! Basically, if you try it in some "country" you get increasing hassle flying to places. Nothing you can put a finger on, because it isn't clearly illegal. Bribes can take care of it, too.
Like I say, this is hardly a standard which a civilised country should aspire to
Last edited by IO540; 28th Oct 2010 at 22:00.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxes for N-Reg airplanes?
I don't understand that: what is my advantage being on the N-Reg regarding taxes? I wouldn't pay any "property tax" for a D-Reg airplane, and I don't pay taxes for my n-reg Cessna. Where is the point here? I don't produce any costs in the FAA system while I am flying in Europe. I am paying the european world through AvGas taxes, landing fees, maintenance shops... I don't see any relevant difference costwise between a d and n reg.
The very only reason I am flying a non EU Cessna on an FAA license is: I am not interested in inner ear anatomy, not at all in the differences between the multiple types of power producers... I just wanne fly if the weather is not optimal somewhere on my route, and from time to time an ILS without having to learn ONE YEAR absolutely non interesting and not needed information.
Well, and I like the Vortex generators on my 182. No SCT available in EASA country...
The very only reason I am flying a non EU Cessna on an FAA license is: I am not interested in inner ear anatomy, not at all in the differences between the multiple types of power producers... I just wanne fly if the weather is not optimal somewhere on my route, and from time to time an ILS without having to learn ONE YEAR absolutely non interesting and not needed information.
Well, and I like the Vortex generators on my 182. No SCT available in EASA country...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just from my limited knowledge.
It depends what sector your in to be honest and what experence base you have.
There is quite a bit of movement in certain turboprop circles Air Baltic are hoovering up more than a few at FO level on the Q400. Although I think that might drop off over winter as they are backing up in line training. But all the pilots I know that have been taken on have been on the market due to being made redundant.
Logan have just taken a few on mostly ex FI's who were already up in Scotland.
The big carriers are thinking about next year but haven't published what there thoughts are yet. Some insiders recon there will be movement others recon they might get away with next summer without recruiting. It depends on the luck of the draw who looses the most to the big guns in the Middle East. Even if they do recruit there is proberly suffcient supply of type rated pilots kicking about.
Freight wise DHL and Aerologic have recruited recently. GSS is in the process of taking on double figures worth of none type rated 747 FO's on.
Middle East have the big guns on the heavys but more and more carriers are looking at the likes of ATR72's and Dashes for the routes which have surplus capacity with a 737 or airbus. I have a sneaky feeling that within a year type rated TP drivers will be getting payed more than 737 pilots which will hopefully open up the European market for low hours pilots that can't afford P2F.
Apart from that the P2F schemes from what I can tell are taking on about 200-300 pilots a year but how long that last after the aircraft orders are complete I really don't know depends on the flow to the other growth markets.
You proberly have more of a clue about whats happening in the biz jet world than I do.
It is slowly building up for experenced pilots depending what they are rated on but its going to be a long time before a sub 500 hour CPL holder will get a look in unless they pay for the experence or have some seriously good contacts.
It depends what sector your in to be honest and what experence base you have.
There is quite a bit of movement in certain turboprop circles Air Baltic are hoovering up more than a few at FO level on the Q400. Although I think that might drop off over winter as they are backing up in line training. But all the pilots I know that have been taken on have been on the market due to being made redundant.
Logan have just taken a few on mostly ex FI's who were already up in Scotland.
The big carriers are thinking about next year but haven't published what there thoughts are yet. Some insiders recon there will be movement others recon they might get away with next summer without recruiting. It depends on the luck of the draw who looses the most to the big guns in the Middle East. Even if they do recruit there is proberly suffcient supply of type rated pilots kicking about.
Freight wise DHL and Aerologic have recruited recently. GSS is in the process of taking on double figures worth of none type rated 747 FO's on.
Middle East have the big guns on the heavys but more and more carriers are looking at the likes of ATR72's and Dashes for the routes which have surplus capacity with a 737 or airbus. I have a sneaky feeling that within a year type rated TP drivers will be getting payed more than 737 pilots which will hopefully open up the European market for low hours pilots that can't afford P2F.
Apart from that the P2F schemes from what I can tell are taking on about 200-300 pilots a year but how long that last after the aircraft orders are complete I really don't know depends on the flow to the other growth markets.
You proberly have more of a clue about whats happening in the biz jet world than I do.
It is slowly building up for experenced pilots depending what they are rated on but its going to be a long time before a sub 500 hour CPL holder will get a look in unless they pay for the experence or have some seriously good contacts.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is my advantage being on the N-Reg regarding taxes?
I pay £450/year for the US trust.
The difference in maintenance costs is on second order effects only. With an N-reg it is easier to avoid the numerous crooks who operate in aircraft maintenance, because you are not tied to any one company. But this strategy requires good contacts; most owners still take their plane to a particular firm. In many ways, N-reg costs more; for example some avionics shops charge steeply for the US DER paperwork.
And a big effect is this: N-reg planes are on the whole of a better class and clearly have more money spent on them than EU-reg ones, so getting some work done is a bit like getting work done on a nice house in the countryside (the builder jacks up the quote substantially, and since most builders will play the same game, you are screwed
). So N-reg can easily cost more to maintain. You as an owner need to be more pro-active to avoid getting shafted.
And what about the tens of thousands of $USD that European FAA pilots have spent in the USA on training for licences? And in my case, also another $10,000 at SIMCOM? Along with plenty other Corporate guys who inject huge amounts of cash into the US economy every year for type rating and reccurrent courses? What about sales of Cirrus and other high value light aircraft that Europeans buy from the States? They sure wouldnt be buying them if they couldnt operate them IFR in Europe. I'd say the US economy benefits quite nicely from the current situation, or am I completely wrong?!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO
I fully agree I don't have a clue how much it costs to run a GA aircraft.
I have more than a clue about how much it costs to run a JAR 25 turboprop and also setup and run a JAR AOC. If you take the operating costs of a N reg in the US per hour in dollars its pretty much that in pounds for a G reg one thats excluding fuel so we get like for like for the same aircraft type.
Last AOC I know about cost £850k to set up.
I say again I don't believe this is setting out to get SEP/MEP types. Although I will agree quite a few airspace policy maker's will be quite chuffed that it will have a fallout of a reduction in slow IFR traffic and sector loads. Its out to get the N reg greater than 5750kg operators.
But again we circle back to costs and who pays what to whom which I must admit I am guilty of as much as the rest. I picked up on a line of thought about tax from a US poster.
When the fundemental issue is.
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice? Then presume that they have the right to permently operate without obeying the local rules and regs where both themselves and the asset are based because they simply prefer or its advantagous for them to use the other countries rules?
If it was anything other than an aircraft with a link to your pilot privilages you would think cheeky buggers that needs to get nipped in the bud.
The fact that we all agree that some of the rules and regs in the EU are wank is neither here nor there.
I fully agree I don't have a clue how much it costs to run a GA aircraft.
I have more than a clue about how much it costs to run a JAR 25 turboprop and also setup and run a JAR AOC. If you take the operating costs of a N reg in the US per hour in dollars its pretty much that in pounds for a G reg one thats excluding fuel so we get like for like for the same aircraft type.
Last AOC I know about cost £850k to set up.
I say again I don't believe this is setting out to get SEP/MEP types. Although I will agree quite a few airspace policy maker's will be quite chuffed that it will have a fallout of a reduction in slow IFR traffic and sector loads. Its out to get the N reg greater than 5750kg operators.
But again we circle back to costs and who pays what to whom which I must admit I am guilty of as much as the rest. I picked up on a line of thought about tax from a US poster.
When the fundemental issue is.
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice? Then presume that they have the right to permently operate without obeying the local rules and regs where both themselves and the asset are based because they simply prefer or its advantagous for them to use the other countries rules?
If it was anything other than an aircraft with a link to your pilot privilages you would think cheeky buggers that needs to get nipped in the bud.
The fact that we all agree that some of the rules and regs in the EU are wank is neither here nor there.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Costs for the FAA system
other than the fact that I pay taxes that go to help fund the FAA and you don't.
And: as I don't produce any costs I am not adding to your bill in any way. Your payments stay the same - if I am on the N-Reg or not. So why do you care?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ - the debate about allegedly avoiding local regs can go on for ever, and the tax issue is bollox (we all pay loads of tax), but what I don't get is your introduction of AOC operations into this.
AOC is completely irrelevant to the N-reg issue - unless (as I wrote earlier) you are getting hot and bothered about illegal charter, which is more likely to be done with privately owned aircraft, which is more likely to be N-reg than G-reg, but that is still irrelevant.
You can put an N-reg on a UK CAA AOC, apparently, and in that case please lay out, in detail, an operating cost comparison of a G-reg on a UK AOC and an N-reg on a UK AOC. I am waiting....
That is mainly true in the big multi-aircraft AOC ops which are often mixed fleets. Passenger-owned jet aircraft (privately or business owned) rarely have dual-rated pilots; no need for it. They tend to employ pilots long term. One customer of mine has an N-reg corporate aircraft whose 2 pilots have worked for them for about 20 years.
AOC is completely irrelevant to the N-reg issue - unless (as I wrote earlier) you are getting hot and bothered about illegal charter, which is more likely to be done with privately owned aircraft, which is more likely to be N-reg than G-reg, but that is still irrelevant.
You can put an N-reg on a UK CAA AOC, apparently, and in that case please lay out, in detail, an operating cost comparison of a G-reg on a UK AOC and an N-reg on a UK AOC. I am waiting....
I have spoken to a couple of Commercial ATPL pilots back home in the UK who fly N reg - but as it is their profession and livelihood at stake - they also as a matter of course also hold JAA - eminently sensible. They got their JAA initially then did the FAA as an easy transition.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IR, family, or job
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice?
Or what do you think will happen when a family father isn't at home nearly every weekend for more than a year? And as these weekends have to be prepared 2-3 evenings are occupied, too.
And during these weekends you learn a lot about inner ear anatomy. Wow, what a deal!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to be in the game to win... In other words you have to be paying taxes before you can get any tax breaks..
The bottom line is there are thousands of N reg's in Europe and around the world. Of these the owners pay money to US trusts, pay money to the FAA in the form of fees (registration etc), pay money to FAA IA's / DARs who then go on to pay money to the FAA for their tickets, pay money to the Federal Communications Commission for radio licenses (~$150 per aeroplane + $50 off per pilot), pay money to US companies for parts and equipment (I buy direct from the USA). Many pilots pump money into US flight schools for training, pump money into the US economy during flying holidays....etc...
All this could end as a result of an N reg ban, COSTING the US economy huge amounts of revenue.
As for MJ's comments - why should it be a level playing field? I for one do not fly for a living, and so the most appropriate way for my to gain my CPLs and IR was to do it in a modular fashion when I had the time. I would not have done it had I had to go through all the JAR hoops and costs which would have been detrimental to safety. JAR was not an option.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree IO about the tax.
The whole N reg thing is mainly being driven by getting the greater than 5750kg aircraft off the N reg and under EASA I believe. It won't as succesful as they believe though as I presume alot of the aircraft will shift there base to outside the EU. I wish I owed a hangar in IOM,JER and Guernsey. These aircraft will in all likely hood have to be under an AOC if the changed to a G reg.
In someways pilots like yourself who have championed the N reg advantages have rubbed salt into the wounds of the Authorities about having the loophole.
And again thore you have tried to combine the pilot priv's with oversight.
There is no where else in the world you would get away with the loophole that excists for N reg in some european countrys. It doesn't for example excist in Denmark. If you are a danish citizen/resident your not allowed to fly N reg or have one perm based in the country.
Anyway I will bow out of this emotive discussion. I don't think anyone is going to change each others views. I will fully agree some of my views come from a protectionist attitude to the qualifications I have. Also the industry I work in and also the GA training side of things which I dearly love being involved in.
The PPL/IR requirements is the battle to be fought and I will support that battle. I will also support the battle to get PPL FI's with a realistic knowledge base. I would also battle as well to change the "system" we have for training FI's which currently is utterly bollocks. I would much prefer the instructor progression to revert back to the old CAA method or head towards the gliding communities Instructor structure.
The kind words of Dublinpilot are completely true. I am a supporter of GA and also GA rights even though I fly commercial. But to deal with the issues we have by copping out using a loophole in two countries/EU legislations is not acceptable. Your niche use of the N reg is only one part of the big picture.
And before you ask I don't know what the big picture is either.
It will be Engineering
Flight ops
Airspace policy
AOC's
Pilot Quals
And a load of other factors.
And I also disgree with the fact that "state" aircraft can ignore safety mandatory items just because the goverment is Skint but wants to play with its toys anyway.
The whole N reg thing is mainly being driven by getting the greater than 5750kg aircraft off the N reg and under EASA I believe. It won't as succesful as they believe though as I presume alot of the aircraft will shift there base to outside the EU. I wish I owed a hangar in IOM,JER and Guernsey. These aircraft will in all likely hood have to be under an AOC if the changed to a G reg.
In someways pilots like yourself who have championed the N reg advantages have rubbed salt into the wounds of the Authorities about having the loophole.
And again thore you have tried to combine the pilot priv's with oversight.
There is no where else in the world you would get away with the loophole that excists for N reg in some european countrys. It doesn't for example excist in Denmark. If you are a danish citizen/resident your not allowed to fly N reg or have one perm based in the country.
Anyway I will bow out of this emotive discussion. I don't think anyone is going to change each others views. I will fully agree some of my views come from a protectionist attitude to the qualifications I have. Also the industry I work in and also the GA training side of things which I dearly love being involved in.
The PPL/IR requirements is the battle to be fought and I will support that battle. I will also support the battle to get PPL FI's with a realistic knowledge base. I would also battle as well to change the "system" we have for training FI's which currently is utterly bollocks. I would much prefer the instructor progression to revert back to the old CAA method or head towards the gliding communities Instructor structure.
The kind words of Dublinpilot are completely true. I am a supporter of GA and also GA rights even though I fly commercial. But to deal with the issues we have by copping out using a loophole in two countries/EU legislations is not acceptable. Your niche use of the N reg is only one part of the big picture.
And before you ask I don't know what the big picture is either.
It will be Engineering
Flight ops
Airspace policy
AOC's
Pilot Quals
And a load of other factors.
And I also disgree with the fact that "state" aircraft can ignore safety mandatory items just because the goverment is Skint but wants to play with its toys anyway.
mad jock, you make a good point about licensing and oversight getting blurred; I'll keep my views to pilot licensing, as that is the area I have experience of 
No; some might think this, but it is a rather defeatist, negative view in my opinion.
Given that the alternative system is quite clearly much better suited to what the person is doing (in terms of time, cost, and safety), a more reasonable person might think "That system works better, how can we make our system more like that to encourage people back?" If the FAA licensing system was in any regards worse than the EU one you might have a point; but, it isn't! I have both sets of licenses, so speak from some experience.
The problem is, the latter attitude seems to people to involve more effort, and the unaccountable people with the power to regulate are purely interested in doing the least work possible to get their nice EU paycheques...
If it was anything other than an aircraft with a link to your pilot privilages you would think cheeky buggers that needs to get nipped in the bud.
Given that the alternative system is quite clearly much better suited to what the person is doing (in terms of time, cost, and safety), a more reasonable person might think "That system works better, how can we make our system more like that to encourage people back?" If the FAA licensing system was in any regards worse than the EU one you might have a point; but, it isn't! I have both sets of licenses, so speak from some experience.
The problem is, the latter attitude seems to people to involve more effort, and the unaccountable people with the power to regulate are purely interested in doing the least work possible to get their nice EU paycheques...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am trying to think of another example where you can step out of the local EU regulation structure as an EU citizen using a foreign asset thats going to be only used inside the EU. I can't!
I have never discussed which one is the best system. I don't really care if there is or isn't a difference.
I would be more sympathatic to your plight if it was actually legal for a EU citizen to own a N reg Aircraft. Its not you have to use a trust to get round the N rules about being a US citizen to own one.
I have never discussed which one is the best system. I don't really care if there is or isn't a difference.
I would be more sympathatic to your plight if it was actually legal for a EU citizen to own a N reg Aircraft. Its not you have to use a trust to get round the N rules about being a US citizen to own one.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mad jock, please listen: FAA IR or EASA IR is not a choice between two options, for probably MOST FAA IR pilots flying around N-Reg in Europe it is the ONLY option. Of course I'd rather fly D-Reg - and I tried. I gave up after 6 months wasting weekends learning theoretical bull****.
If somehow the EASA stops me from flying IFR in Europe, my only other option is to stop flying, not to go through this crazy time consuming process...
Dear EASA: we want to come into your arms if you stop making the rules that complicated. Make them as safe and easy as the FAA system and we don't have any reason to go the american way.
And dear EASA, if you just try to make it harder for us: accept, that in a globalised world it is much easier to find ways around your rules as making the Inner Ear Anatomy Bull**** EASA IR. A Bahamian company is just a few hundred Dollars and 15 mouse clicks away. You don't believe that I sold my aircraft to this NON EU Aircraft operation company, or you believe this company belongs somehow to me? Prove it, baby! And take care of your balls... we gonna have fun!
If somehow the EASA stops me from flying IFR in Europe, my only other option is to stop flying, not to go through this crazy time consuming process...
Dear EASA: we want to come into your arms if you stop making the rules that complicated. Make them as safe and easy as the FAA system and we don't have any reason to go the american way.
And dear EASA, if you just try to make it harder for us: accept, that in a globalised world it is much easier to find ways around your rules as making the Inner Ear Anatomy Bull**** EASA IR. A Bahamian company is just a few hundred Dollars and 15 mouse clicks away. You don't believe that I sold my aircraft to this NON EU Aircraft operation company, or you believe this company belongs somehow to me? Prove it, baby! And take care of your balls... we gonna have fun!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice?
However, and it's a big however, we are stuck with a situation where this has being going on for a long time. Changing it in one instant shock will have very negative consequences for GA.
Many GA pilots will give up flying if forced to get an EASA IR or return to VFR flight. Many of these FAA pilots went that way so that they would have access for an IR, which they didn't feel they would have under the EU system, and they needed the utility of the IR to make GA work for them.
If that is now taken away from them, they are unlikely to get an EASA IR (many are older and wouldn't take well to having to study for exams). Without an IR the utility that they enjoyed will be gone, and they'll give up.
Many of these pilot will be aircraft owners. That's a lot of aircraft coming back on the market in a recession, which will affect valuations of all aircraft.
Also because many of these pilots were IFR and aircraft owners, then tended to be people who flew a lot. They bought lots of fuel, paid lots of landing and parking fees, and generally contributed to the aviation facilities around the place. If they are to give up now, then it falls on the rest of us to make up those costs to keep airports in business.
I for one aren't looking forward to either:
a) increasing costs to use airports to make up for the lost of these very active pilots, or
b) seeing airports, restaurants at aiports or refueling facilities closing down.
So while I a lot of sympathy with the view mentioned above, and I won't be directly impacted by the regulation change, I see it as very negative for GA as a whole.
It might take some time for that impact to filter through to me and my flying, but it will eventually.
The other concern I have is that these pilots make up a very significant percentage of the GA IFR traffic. If they are removed from the scene, then IFR GA becomes an even smaller minority interest. With so few IFR GA pilots let, no one will be able to stand up for IFR GA. When my time comes to get an IR, there will be no system left for me to fly in, without exhorbant costs, because there will be no one left to stand up for IFR GA.
dp
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because its very hard not to under EU regs.
I think now even the Duke of Westminster (Monty) has got his Jet on one and I really couldn't think of a bloke who operates an aircraft in a more private fashion. He flies it and his dog is the co-pilot.
But again we are get away from the core issue which is.
And the fact that the local rules and regs are wank isn't an excuse.
All valid points Dublin.
But the effort should be in getting realistic or equivalent priv's in our system.
Now setting aside the AOC types of aircraft. Personally I can only see more and more limitations being put on GA IFR airways flights anyway purely from a airspace saturation point of view. We just don't have the space that the US does and the amount of work an area controller has to put into a GA flight is exactly the same as an A380 and fills a slot towards sector capacity.
In the next 5 years I can see the airways charges wavier being removed and a realistic price charged taking into account the revenue lost for displacing a revenue flight.
So no matter what the end result of this issue is GA IFR airways flights are going to be limited due to lack of capacity be it by cutting the numbers down through removing the N reg loophole or by pricing the airways flight into the relms of stupidity.
I think now even the Duke of Westminster (Monty) has got his Jet on one and I really couldn't think of a bloke who operates an aircraft in a more private fashion. He flies it and his dog is the co-pilot.
But again we are get away from the core issue which is.
Why should a person domicle and resident in one country be able to opt out of the local laws and regulations, using I might add a constructed system to bypass its ownership laws in another country of choice? Then presume that they have the right to permently operate without obeying the local rules and regs where both themselves and the asset are based because they simply prefer or its advantagous for them to use the other countries rules?
All valid points Dublin.
But the effort should be in getting realistic or equivalent priv's in our system.
Now setting aside the AOC types of aircraft. Personally I can only see more and more limitations being put on GA IFR airways flights anyway purely from a airspace saturation point of view. We just don't have the space that the US does and the amount of work an area controller has to put into a GA flight is exactly the same as an A380 and fills a slot towards sector capacity.
In the next 5 years I can see the airways charges wavier being removed and a realistic price charged taking into account the revenue lost for displacing a revenue flight.
So no matter what the end result of this issue is GA IFR airways flights are going to be limited due to lack of capacity be it by cutting the numbers down through removing the N reg loophole or by pricing the airways flight into the relms of stupidity.
Last edited by mad_jock; 29th Oct 2010 at 14:18.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the fact that the local rules and regs are wank isn't an excuse.
You think this will not happen because software guys don't need inner ear anatomy knowledge? I agree, same for pilots flying a 182 through some clouds.