EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[mad_jock]

I don't have a clue what a part 91 aircraft is.

[IO540]

FAR Part 91 wiki is what a privately operated N-reg aircraft is maintained and operated to.

If you carry paying passengers then you cannot run under Part 91; you will be Part 121 or Part 135, but then you also need an AOC - as on G-reg.

The N-reg private jets (and other N-regs) you see going around are under Part 91.

My TB20 is under Part 91.

Loosely speaking, Part 91 corresponds to the old CAA Private CofA.

This is why I don't understand your assertion that an N-reg privately operated jet would have to go on an AOC if moved to EU-reg. But maybe I am missing something, so please enlighten me.

BTW I did a quick google on something and found this from 2003 which made me smile. We have been around this block so many times... Some of the faces change around from year to year.

[Katamarino]

mad jock, you still seem to think we should drag everyone down to the lowest level, rather than improving our own system to close the gap with the superior one.

Can you give me one LOGICAL argument for forcing people onto this inferior (for them) system, apart from "well, everyone else does it"? I'm talking about an argument that addresses cost, safety, and utility; NOT one that is based purely on keeping bureaucrats in jobs. Please, just one...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Originally Posted by Katamarino

mad jock, you still seem to think we should drag everyone down to the lowest level, rather than improving our own system to close the gap with the superior one.

Can you give me one LOGICAL argument for forcing people onto this inferior (for them) system, apart from "well, everyone else does it"? I'm talking about an argument that addresses cost, safety, and utility; NOT one that is based purely on keeping bureaucrats in jobs. Please, just one...

On what basis do you consider the FAA "inferior". Certainly if one looks at the accident record there is no evidence that holders of FAA IR ratings have a higher accident rate.

Bottom line: The FAA licensing system manages to qualify all of their airman/women with just a fraction of the academic requirements of their EU counterparts yet the lowest overall aviation accident rate in the world (private operations through major airlines) for aircraft flying IFR is in US domestic airspace. Canada woke up and smelled the coffee 15 years ago and ditched its old UK derived air regulation sytem with a new set which largely mirrors the FAR's, maybe it is time that the EU did the same thing......

[mad_jock]

Please quote where I have said JAR is better than FAA.

I have stated that EASA system doesn't require change?

But....

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?

Still stands.

If you want to be under the rules and regulations of the USA become a citizen of it.

I don't want 90% of the bollocks that comes out of Europe but just because I don't like it and have found somewhere else that in my opinion does it better I can do it that way anyway.

What shall we do?

Scrap EASA and make every aircraft in europe N reg?
Work towards realistic regulation in Europe?
Let a minority of residents operate outside EU oversight through a loophole?

We can argue round the technicalities of what goes on a part 91 or what goes on a AOC which system is better or worse. But it makes sod all difference to the principle of which country are you a citizen of, which country you are domicile in, and which one you are a resident of.

If you choose to be in A country you have to take all the good points as well as the bad. If the bad out weigh the good, go to another country which the good out weighs the bad.

I am 100% certain that the current situation will not continue because every N reg based in the EU is basically sticking the middle finger up at the european regulatory process and principle.

[Katamarino]

Big Pistons; I was referring to the FAA as the superior system.

mad jock; you still fail to give a reason why we should accept the EASA system, apart from "well, you live here". That is NOT a logical argument. Given that we do have to live here, I'd say it's our job to stand up for our rights, and push for a better system; I don't care if that's acceptance of the N-Reg, or proper EASA ratings instead of the moronic IR that we have now, not to mention the terrible maintenance setup.

I don't even own an N-Reg aircraft (although when I buy, it will be N-Reg due to the availability of modifications without bribing EASA with £10,000+ a pop); but I object to paying 3x the price to fly an identical aircraft here in Holland, purely because the regulators are too lazy and incompetent, or downright crooked, to regulate things in a sensible manner.

N-Reg is not the problem; it is merely a symptom of the problem.

Work towards realistic regulation in Europe?

We should of course do this; but how much faith do you really have that the regulators will do this? They seem to be actively anti-GA in most things they do.

[mad_jock]

And before any one gets on there high horse.

That last statement was said with absolutely no glee or any form of enjoyment. I really am not arguing the the point because I get any satisfaction that EU FAA pilots are going to get shafted big style

I realise as well it will take in some cases considerable amount of money, time and also butchering of pefectly safe airframes to get them on the reg.

This situation has been developing for years but because the political types go in for the easy life they have always avoided it.

Much easier making up rules about vegetables and other such pish than deal with subjects they could get there fingers burnt with.

[englishal]

What shall we do?

Mutual exchange of licences
Mutual recognition of FAA STCs

...for starters. This way people wouldn't have to move the the N reg in the first place. Bearing in mind that most N reg pilot/private owners only go that route as the JAA system was only ever designed for commercial pilot wannabes and aeroplanes operating as commercial air transport, both of which I am not interested in.

It is pretty shocking that one might have to say disable the IFR capabilities of an IFR GPS due to no Euro-recognition of the kit (or remove an ELT), despite the fact that by having the "capability" would enhance safety (and I don't mean placarding the device as "VFR only" but actually physically disabling)...

I can fit safety enhancing gadgets to my aeroplane that the FAA considers safe though data they have collected (take an engine monitor as an example), yet under EASA that bit of kit would have to be taken out / disabled or a huge fee paid and months to get it approved.

[WestWind1950]

there is already a rule in the FAA FAR's that states you are to follow the rules of the country you are flying in (sorry, don't know the chapter). For example, if your country requires a airplane logbook, which includes the names of the pilots flying, and you operate a N reg plane in that country... well guess what? start using that airplane logbook!

I have to agree with Mad_Jock (hi ya mate!).... you fly in a country perminently, then you abide by their rules! You don't like their rules? Then go somewhere else.

I also disagree with much of the present JAR-FCL and future EASA regs, but it's getting kind of late to do much about it.

[mad_jock]

Thats fair enough.

You have to accept the EASA system because its part and parcel of living in the EU if you like it or not. If you want the FAA system you have to become a citizen of the US and accept the negative points of being one of them (I don't have a clue what they are apart they seem to have a whole load of bother with tax returns where ever they are living in the world)

I completly agree some of the EU regs are protectionist, don't seem to have much common sense backing them up, clunky, full of red tape, bizarre.

Doesn't change the fact you live in the EU and are under there rules and regs. Its our collective fault that the politicans that created the rules were in power in the first place.

And what happens when.

Mutual exchange of licences
Mutual recognition of FAA STCs

Is deemed unacceptable to the regulators because its not reciprocated by the FAA? To be honest its not the license which is an issue its the ratings and training which are the problem on the pilot side of things.

[IO540]

Nevertheless, MJ, I don't see a whole lot of N-reg jets avoiding an AOC by being N-reg...

An AOC is for paying passengers, and this is the same everywhere.

[Thomascl605]

I appreciate that you have your own view Mad Jock, but your quote here is a bit out of line "If you want to be under the rules and regulations of the USA become a citizen of it."

By your same logic this transfers that all JAA licenced citizen pilots should work only in Europe, all FAA pilots in the USA, all Brazilian Pilots etc etc etc

If this was the case then you wouldn't have JAA/FAA licenced Pilots working side by side at say Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Cathay etc etc. By your logic they would all need to become citizens of the UAE, Qatar, etc, and take those countries full licences from scratch, before they could fly say an A6 reg Aircraft ?

The world today doesn't work like that. We have to be more open minded and supportive of our fellow aviators. Me, I don't care who I fly with, as I've said before I've flown with both FAA/JAA and other non EU licenced pilots. So what if I can't fly an EU reg jet, I'm not particularly worried. By the same token, so what if we fly "N" reg jets on FAA licences in Europe. Is this something that really emotionally affects you ? Would you glean some kind of professional satisfaction from seeing a fellow EU Aviator out of a job ?

[mad_jock]

We don't have to be supportive of all our fellow aviators. Otherwise O'Leary would have the sky's full of the cheapest pilots he could get his hands on.

I am supportive of the majority of the pilots in the EU who follow the rules and regulations that have been allocated to us.

If you work in the UAE you can't get a GCAA licnese unless you have a valid residents permit. You also require a local sponsor. This is the norm around the world as the first step in the license conversion procedure.

I currently have 3 different valid ATPL's because I have conformed to the regulations of the country's I have worked in. You are based in the EU and are working in the EU whats so special about you that means you don't have to conform to the local regulations?

By the simple fact you are not conforming to European regulations and don't want to either, means your not an european aviator in my book. If your job disappears it will invoke the same amount of emotion in me that any other grey market job that disappears on a change of regulation to close a loophole, which is precisely zero.

[Thomascl605]

O'Leary has nothing to do with supporting a fellow EU aviator. It's a bad comparison, you may want to edit your post as it's coming across as incoherent and quite humorous to us Bizjet guys.

What rules are we not following then ? I've been flying an "N" reg jet in Europe for years and I'm not in jail.

Yes, GCAA will give you a validation (that's my point) you wont have to start from scratch with their national licences though, which is what is being proposed in Europe. So if there's such a big deal about this then I'll have a validation thank you.

3 different ATPL's means nothing to me, and I do conform with the Law for flying an "N" reg aircraft.

If you don't class me as a European Aviator, then why have I been flying all over Europe on an "N" reg Bizjet for may years. A strange judgement from you.

Zero emotion you say if my career was over. I can't really answer you there because I think you have painted your own picture of the type of Aviator / Person that you really are.

[IO540]

MJ's job-protectionist views are probably not unusual in the bizjet community, but they are based on a misguided understanding of legality. This is evidenced by his view (which he is unable to defend) that N-reg jets will have to go on an AOC if moved to G-reg. He has no doubt seen illegal charter and thinks that by stopping N-reg jets being based here that will stop. Of course it won't stop; you can do it just as easily in a G-reg. In fact, and this applies to dodgy maintenance too, in a G-reg you are far less likely to draw attention, both in the UK and in say France where the Customs have no right to query the VAT status of a G-reg but can do so on an N-reg. From memory, in the AAIB reports where a plane was basically totally illegal (no maintenance for years) or the pilot had no valid licenses/medicals, nearly all the planes were G-reg. The one exception I recall was in the 1970s: Graham Hill's N-reg Aztec which was unregistered, presumably due to a c0ckup by somebody as the owner clearly had loads of dosh.

[Thomascl605]

So true, I know of at least two "G" reg outfits that carry out illegal charters on a regular basis.

[mad_jock]

All your points may be valid.

But please answer the question.

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?

And what would I need to do to get an ATP?

[thore]

mj: did you recently buy a chinese DVD player? This is nearly the same thing: you opt out. With this buy you deny local social security systems, environment protection, union rights, etc. etc.

This is a globalised world - and there is nothing you can do about it.

Btw, I don't see this regulation as a "loophole". I am taking what this world offers, and yes, the best offers may come from other nations.

And, did you buy the chinese DVD player because there was no option to buy one build in Scotland? Same for me for the FAA IR - no other option.

[thore]

mj, another example. Around 5 miles NW of Hamburg there is a tiny little restaurant located directly on the river Elbe. Every time a ship drives by into the harbour of Hamburg, they play the national hymn of the country where this ship comes from.

What do you think, which national hymn I knew by hard after sitting there for 3 hours? Right, the hymn of Panama.

So you buy chinese DVD players, I go for an FAA IR, the Hamburg shipowners opt for Panama - that's the way it is.

And this is especially true for such a flexible and mobile thing like an airplane. If the DVD player doesn't t know national boundaries, why should the plane?

[mad_jock]

In the UK I can't buy a Chinese CD which is not EU'd and have the mark that says it has met the EU safety regulations if i could tranding standards would shut the shop and the CD players taken and destroyed.

You do have a choice which is get a JAR license.

yes yes I know you think the whole system is rubbish and you can't be arsed doing the exams.

Lets face it its not as if you have to actually do the brush up courses.

So you have to sit the IR exams and do some distance learning. The cadets at my old work managed to get 95-98% averages while working 12 hour ops shifts 5 times a week. IR is less exams than the full ATPL.

You then have to do 15 hours training of which 10 hours can be in a FNPT2. That 15 hours includes the 170A.

Then sit a Flight test.

If I wanted to get a FAA IR I would

Have to do the IR exam by self learning
Training as required which would proberly be in the region of 10 hours sim and 5 aircraft because I have never done partial panel approaches and FAA holds are a bit different to what I am used to.
Oral examination which could included anything from the FARs which I don't have a clue about.
Flight test.

To be honest the conversion looks remarkably similar to me. Or do you want something special over all the other ICAO licenses?


In fact just looking at the ATPL icao conversion and it just as easy.

Exams at the approval of a training provider (Phone Bristol Ground School and I am sure Alex will sort you out)

Sit exams

Class 1 medical

Then a LPC with a TRE on an aircraft you have 500 hours on. Or you can do a JAR TR if your going onto a new type.


Looks remarkably similar to the conversions I have done for my none JAR ATPLS. And certainly alot easier than converting to a ATPL lic in Japan. Which involves 6 months of face to face ground school and a full type rating on your aircraft of choice and extended line training with a CAA approved line trainer.