EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More likely IMO is that N reg will be retained although under more control by EASA
What could "more control" be, I wonder?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What could "more control" be, I wonder?
complying with EASA requests on an "informal" basis?Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, yes, the thing I would put money on (if I had to put money on something) is
(1) a complete (or de facto, with the politically mandatory face saving procedures) meltdown of the anti FRA proposals, or
(2) a compromise, which could be easy transitional procedures for converting ICAO papers to EASA papers (but these would have to be significantly "easy" because few "older" working bizjet CPL/IRs/ATPs will be willing or able to sit the 14 exams.)
I totally do not buy the occassionally posted assertions of how easy the 14 exams are, because all those who have said they are easy (and who are known to me) are either very bright individuals with an amazing ability to absorb and memorise tons of crap, or de facto unemployed people, or in some cases both!
Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.
(1) a complete (or de facto, with the politically mandatory face saving procedures) meltdown of the anti FRA proposals, or
(2) a compromise, which could be easy transitional procedures for converting ICAO papers to EASA papers (but these would have to be significantly "easy" because few "older" working bizjet CPL/IRs/ATPs will be willing or able to sit the 14 exams.)
I totally do not buy the occassionally posted assertions of how easy the 14 exams are, because all those who have said they are easy (and who are known to me) are either very bright individuals with an amazing ability to absorb and memorise tons of crap, or de facto unemployed people, or in some cases both!
Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.
Last edited by IO540; 6th Oct 2010 at 15:33.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.
What todays amazing IMC concession?.
Today's amazing IMC Rating concession shows what can be done if enough fuss is made. But it could not have been the result of just the one meeting (today) no matter how much noise was made there. The outcome was prob99 decided elsewhere, having seen how much ***t was aiming at the fan, and presented at the meeting.
What todays amazing IMC concession?.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SoCal
So what are you trying to say?
On an annual basis I purchase airline tickets to the USA, then rent cars pay hotels, pay 1500$ to an FAA examiner rent time on a sim or sometimes on an aircraft.
I spend 1000s of dollars every year renewing my FAA type rating. If I was stopped flying FAA then that would stop. There are many ATPs like me some who spend even more at places like flight safety.
If thousands of aircraft are no longer useable in Europe they will flood the market depreciating prices.
Joe Bloggs who has an order for a shiny new all singing dancing cirrus thats turbocharged to fly in the high teens wont bother buying it to trundle along VFR at 2 K.
My owners spend Millions $s on their jets, parts and maintenance often goes into 100,000s of $s annually
So what are you trying to say that it is OK for EASA to ban N reg in Europe although the pilots are fully qualified to fly those aircraft by insisting they hold licences which have no relevance to the aircraft flown!
But this isnt the point. I flew as a Captain on a Citation S2 35 hrs flight time over the USA, Canada, Iceland, Europe, Africa to S Africa my licences are accepted everywhere as they should be.
Flying should know NO boundaries. We should all be licenced to fly safely to a standard acceptable everywhere.
To be told your ATP and experience is worth NOTHING by EASA to be told start from scratch as an idiot is a JOKE and stinks. Its all wrong!
To be told you are fully licenced but must hold equivalent EASA licences which would be illegal if used on that N reg is mad.
To be told you must find £1000s and £1000s to get those unneeded licences out of your own pocket is madder.
To be told you will loose your position on the jets you fly because no one will wait while your away for months is INSANE
10540 will you please refrain from referring to me in this forum 
much easier please like 1 exam in large size print and preferably 10 years to do it 
Pace
So what are you trying to say?
On an annual basis I purchase airline tickets to the USA, then rent cars pay hotels, pay 1500$ to an FAA examiner rent time on a sim or sometimes on an aircraft.
I spend 1000s of dollars every year renewing my FAA type rating. If I was stopped flying FAA then that would stop. There are many ATPs like me some who spend even more at places like flight safety.
If thousands of aircraft are no longer useable in Europe they will flood the market depreciating prices.
Joe Bloggs who has an order for a shiny new all singing dancing cirrus thats turbocharged to fly in the high teens wont bother buying it to trundle along VFR at 2 K.
My owners spend Millions $s on their jets, parts and maintenance often goes into 100,000s of $s annually
So what are you trying to say that it is OK for EASA to ban N reg in Europe although the pilots are fully qualified to fly those aircraft by insisting they hold licences which have no relevance to the aircraft flown!
But this isnt the point. I flew as a Captain on a Citation S2 35 hrs flight time over the USA, Canada, Iceland, Europe, Africa to S Africa my licences are accepted everywhere as they should be.
Flying should know NO boundaries. We should all be licenced to fly safely to a standard acceptable everywhere.
To be told your ATP and experience is worth NOTHING by EASA to be told start from scratch as an idiot is a JOKE and stinks. Its all wrong!
To be told you are fully licenced but must hold equivalent EASA licences which would be illegal if used on that N reg is mad.
To be told you must find £1000s and £1000s to get those unneeded licences out of your own pocket is madder.
To be told you will loose your position on the jets you fly because no one will wait while your away for months is INSANE
these would have to be significantly "easy" because few "older" working bizjet CPL/IRs/ATPs will be willing or able to sit the 14 exams.)
much easier please like 1 exam in large size print and preferably 10 years to do it Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Oct 2010 at 16:42.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the proposal is to make all domiciled eu pilots have eu licences to fly there eu based FAA aircraft
It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yet
It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yet
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A possible scaremongering comment. Even "residing in" is yet to be defined - yet alone how it might impact a non Euro citizen.
And if you don't believe the "residency" requirement has any meaning then all of this stuff is just hot air and we can forget about talking about it!
Sure the AOPA wording is not quite joined up, but then how many UK pilots understand FAR 61.3 and how it maps onto Europe, etc. The point is that AOPA is making a lot of fuss, finally, which could be improved only by hiring Max Clifford (but UK AOPA cannot afford him, by a long way... they would have to remortgage their nice London premises
). AOPA has had an ambiguous stance on N-reg for years and finally they have lined up behind this very important cause, which is to be applauded.
10540 will you please refrain from referring to me in this forum
Actually I think we are of similar age...
the proposal is to make all domiciled eu pilots have eu licences to fly there eu based FAA aircraft
It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yet
It's not a ban on FAA n registered aircraft. Well not yet
Higher up the hardware cost scale, bizjets, airframe/equipment certification becomes more important, but equally the cost of obtaining the duplicate Euro CPL/IR or ATP papers is so much higher, with 14 exams etc.
There are many N-reg planes which could not be economically transferred to a Euro reg. They have decades of 337'd mods which would be an EASA Design agency's delight for years to come. I know a man who spent something like £8000 on paperwork for a composite oxygen cylinder for a SEP, to replace an existing steel one. Especially in many European countries, where the local CAA is totally bonkers. In some "warm Europe" places, putting a TB20 on the local reg is not much different to putting a 737 on the local reg.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer your exact question (I hope): I am not aware of anywhere where they allow long term N-reg parking but do require local papers, as well as State of Registry papers.
Regarding long term N-reg parking, this is widely disallowed, but all the countries concerned are 3rd world police dictatorships (Thailand is one case I know) where the law may or may not be written that way, but if you stay on the N-reg, "various things" get "harder" over time, and eventually you "get the idea"... you not so much have to get local papers but have to move to the local registry.
No civilised country does it.
Regarding long term N-reg parking, this is widely disallowed, but all the countries concerned are 3rd world police dictatorships (Thailand is one case I know) where the law may or may not be written that way, but if you stay on the N-reg, "various things" get "harder" over time, and eventually you "get the idea"... you not so much have to get local papers but have to move to the local registry.
No civilised country does it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a point that some 3rd world licences are questionable as to their quality but that doesnt cover FAA or European which are of equal quality.
The FAA model is largest worldwide.
Pace
The FAA model is largest worldwide.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesn't France have a rule of not allowing a EU resident fly a F reg on a non JAA license but will allow a non resident to do so.
I can dig it out for anybody interested. Not seen it for years though.
I think the intention is to allow visiting U.S. people to fly F-reg planes on their FAA PPL/IRs. A lot of European countries do validations like that, though few publicise the option because, obviously, it is rather difficult to police once the person decides to hang around in Europe for a longer period.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't Thailand give you a set of local papers though?
Seriously basing it on "domicile" is crazy. I could become NR of the EU by moving 40 miles south.....That holiday home in Alderney is looking very attractive!
Seriously basing it on "domicile" is crazy. I could become NR of the EU by moving 40 miles south.....That holiday home in Alderney is looking very attractive!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The proposal uses the word "resident", not domiciled or national or citizen.
It is true that if you live on the IOM and fly an N-reg or M-reg plane, you can ignore all this crap. The problem with these places is, what can I call it.... a slight lack of diversity of DNA
Yes I think Thailand converts your FAA papers to local ones. I don't know the details (but could find out).
It is true that if you live on the IOM and fly an N-reg or M-reg plane, you can ignore all this crap. The problem with these places is, what can I call it.... a slight lack of diversity of DNA
Yes I think Thailand converts your FAA papers to local ones. I don't know the details (but could find out).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Chaps I've been doing some digging. You need to read the Draft Regulation for FCL
Stick with Para 1 above for the time being, then look at the Basic Regulation Article 4(c) it refers to.
Now ask yourself whether your N Reg used by someone resident in the Community is "(c) registered in a third country" and "used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community"
If you agree with me then the pilot falls within the scope of the Draft Regulation.
Annex III of the Draft Regulation says
Note the wording "Pilots shall apply" (my emphasis).
I've no idea what the intention is but it is certainly possible to read this as "If you are resident in the EC and operating an N-Reg you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation. If you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation you will be governed by the FCL Regulation. When that comes into force you shall apply for validation which will last for a limited time. Thereafter you will need an EASA licence."
Discuss
At the least we need clarification from EASA as to their intention.
Article 1 Objective and scope
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1.
the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
2.
the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.
3.
the licensing, training and testing of pilots of aircraft referred to in (a)(ii), (d) and (h) of Annex II to the Basic Regulation, when used in commercial air transport.
This Regulation establishes common technical requirements for:
1.
the licensing, training and testing of pilots involved in the operation of aircraft referred to in Article 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Basic Regulation;
2.
the certification of personnel responsible for providing flight training or flight simulation training and for assessing a pilot’s skill.
3.
the licensing, training and testing of pilots of aircraft referred to in (a)(ii), (d) and (h) of Annex II to the Basic Regulation, when used in commercial air transport.
Article 4
Basic principles and applicability
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance,
which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member
State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight
to a third country, and used by a third-country operator
into, within or out of the Community
Basic principles and applicability
1. Aircraft, including any installed product, part and appliance,
which are:
(a) designed or manufactured by an organisation for which the Agency or a Member State ensures safety oversight; or
(b) registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator; or
(c) registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community; or
(d) registered in a third country, or registered in a Member
State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight
to a third country, and used by a third-country operator
into, within or out of the Community
If you agree with me then the pilot falls within the scope of the Draft Regulation.
Annex III of the Draft Regulation says
A. VALIDATION OF LICENCES
General
1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
2. The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL.
General
1. A pilot licence issued in compliance with the requirements of ICAO Annex 1 by a third country may be validated by the competent authority of a Member State.
Pilots shall apply to the competent authority of the Member State where they reside or are established, or, if they are not residing in the territory of the Member States, where the operator for which they are flying or intend to fly has its principal place of business.
2. The period of validation of a licence shall not exceed 1 year, provided that the basic licence remains valid.
This period may only be extended once by the competent authority that issued the validation when, during the validation period, the pilot has applied, or is undergoing training, for the issuance of a licence in accordance with Part-FCL. This extension shall cover the period of time necessary for the licence to be issued in accordance with Part-FCL.
I've no idea what the intention is but it is certainly possible to read this as "If you are resident in the EC and operating an N-Reg you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation. If you fall within the scope of the Basic Regulation you will be governed by the FCL Regulation. When that comes into force you shall apply for validation which will last for a limited time. Thereafter you will need an EASA licence."
Discuss
At the least we need clarification from EASA as to their intention.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you will need an EASA licence means what? Take me for example
I hold FAA ATP plus current FAA Citation type rating. I believe somewhere I read that EASA will accept 3 rd country type ratings but do I need to have an EASA ATP? an EASA Class I medical.
As a side note a friend and first officer of mine went the FAA way because he failed his class 1 on eyesight but passed the FAA class 1 and he is 33 with his career ahead.
Having spent a fortune on his career he could find that he holds useless licences unless he works abroad?
But back to me. The Citation can be flown by an FAA PPL with an IR and the 3 country type rating.
I cannot use my EASA ATP (if I ever got one) to earn money. I use my FAA ATP for the earning money part.
So again for clarity you could theoretically gain an EASA PPL IR (I already hold JAA Multi IMCR) so in that case only the IR.
Although I have flown all over the world and europe as a Captain and have 5000 hrs the vast majority multi and jet that counts for almost Nothing?
The next point I want to make is one on responsability. You have an FAA aircraft that crashes. Which jurisdiction is responsable for the aircraft? EASA or FAA? or Joint. The answer is obvious it will be the FAA as the EASA licences hold no validity on the aircraft. EASA want control but have none in this scenario. Their only control in forcing FAA Licenced pilots to hold EASA ones is just that! They have no control over the aircraft or crew or have NO part in the operational side of that jet. Their only control is to walk up to the pilot, find out if he is a resident and demand to see his EASA licence which all seems pretty pointless from a control point of view.
Pace
I hold FAA ATP plus current FAA Citation type rating. I believe somewhere I read that EASA will accept 3 rd country type ratings but do I need to have an EASA ATP? an EASA Class I medical.
As a side note a friend and first officer of mine went the FAA way because he failed his class 1 on eyesight but passed the FAA class 1 and he is 33 with his career ahead.
Having spent a fortune on his career he could find that he holds useless licences unless he works abroad?
But back to me. The Citation can be flown by an FAA PPL with an IR and the 3 country type rating.
I cannot use my EASA ATP (if I ever got one) to earn money. I use my FAA ATP for the earning money part.
So again for clarity you could theoretically gain an EASA PPL IR (I already hold JAA Multi IMCR) so in that case only the IR.
Although I have flown all over the world and europe as a Captain and have 5000 hrs the vast majority multi and jet that counts for almost Nothing?
The next point I want to make is one on responsability. You have an FAA aircraft that crashes. Which jurisdiction is responsable for the aircraft? EASA or FAA? or Joint. The answer is obvious it will be the FAA as the EASA licences hold no validity on the aircraft. EASA want control but have none in this scenario. Their only control in forcing FAA Licenced pilots to hold EASA ones is just that! They have no control over the aircraft or crew or have NO part in the operational side of that jet. Their only control is to walk up to the pilot, find out if he is a resident and demand to see his EASA licence which all seems pretty pointless from a control point of view.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 6th Oct 2010 at 18:09.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"(c) registered in a third country" and "used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community"
I've said this before, but I'll say it again - IMHO the whole thing hinges on the definition of operator. I cannot see, how a trust based in the US can be considered to be "established or residing in the Community', much less so a company leasing biz jets.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, we have done this one to death here, in multiple threads.
The words "operator" and "resident" are unclear and would need a precedent set by the courts - in each EU state (because any criminal action, or insurance related litigation, would be done locally). There is a lot of complexity around this, and a lot of fairly obvious avoidance tactics.
Like I said before, ICAO allows any member state to not recognise the use of foreign licenses (and medicals) by a "national" (meaning "citizen").
EASA's use of the word "resident" is pushing things a bit beyond what ICAO allows on FCL and medicals.
OTOH, each country has obviously got total jurisdiction within its borders (if you overfly Iran they might shoot at you, etc, and you can't exactly phone up ICAO and demand that somebody goes to Tehran and beats up the Ayatollah) and maybe EASA is relying on that "3rd world" option. The EU has the theoretical power to force each member state to implement any measure whatsoever.
However, from comms I have had with a real lawyer working in this field, it appears quite possible that the EASA committee which drafted this stuff never got legal advice. I find this staggering... but it would explain why we are arguing about this totally opaque bollox.
If this garbage was really drawn up by non-legal people, they must be rolling on the floor laughing at us debating it ad nauseum, and seriously contemplating going to do the JAA IRs en masse.
The words "operator" and "resident" are unclear and would need a precedent set by the courts - in each EU state (because any criminal action, or insurance related litigation, would be done locally). There is a lot of complexity around this, and a lot of fairly obvious avoidance tactics.
Like I said before, ICAO allows any member state to not recognise the use of foreign licenses (and medicals) by a "national" (meaning "citizen").
EASA's use of the word "resident" is pushing things a bit beyond what ICAO allows on FCL and medicals.
OTOH, each country has obviously got total jurisdiction within its borders (if you overfly Iran they might shoot at you, etc, and you can't exactly phone up ICAO and demand that somebody goes to Tehran and beats up the Ayatollah) and maybe EASA is relying on that "3rd world" option. The EU has the theoretical power to force each member state to implement any measure whatsoever.
However, from comms I have had with a real lawyer working in this field, it appears quite possible that the EASA committee which drafted this stuff never got legal advice. I find this staggering... but it would explain why we are arguing about this totally opaque bollox.
If this garbage was really drawn up by non-legal people, they must be rolling on the floor laughing at us debating it ad nauseum, and seriously contemplating going to do the JAA IRs en masse.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Remember all those documents are titled "journal of EASA" They are not legal documents but an evolving think tank.
Yes they could then be made into legal documents by I suppose the legal department
Pace
Remember all those documents are titled "journal of EASA" They are not legal documents but an evolving think tank.
Yes they could then be made into legal documents by I suppose the legal department
Pace
Pace:
Yes. That is exactly what this amounts to. No more avoiding of compulsory life sentence by medical. He'd better start looking in the US or elsewhere outside Europe now, the stampede is about to start.
Nothing whatsoever. You are flying an American airplane and that, according to the EASA power players, won't happen after April 2012 for any European resident.
Has to be mentioned, it's not only the N- register which is concerned, but ANY register outside the EU. I agree that most of this concerns N- VP- M- and all that, but it will also end any other activity within Europe.
All in all I believe this issue will make or brake GA for Europe. If EASA get's their way with this, they will put tens of thousands of people out of work, factually destroy their livelihoods and render their planes worthless. This in return will mean a meltdown in prices of the said planes but at the same time take away a huge amount of work from maintenance organisations with FAA approval and render these people jobless. That might well mean that prices for the remaining EU registered fleet may go up as well. And it will prove that EASA can get away with everything. Not a good perspective.
We might as well start looking for new shores now.
Having spent a fortune on his career he could find that he holds useless licences unless he works abroad?
Although I have flown all over the world and europe as a Captain and have 5000 hrs the vast majority multi and jet that counts for almost Nothing?
Has to be mentioned, it's not only the N- register which is concerned, but ANY register outside the EU. I agree that most of this concerns N- VP- M- and all that, but it will also end any other activity within Europe.
All in all I believe this issue will make or brake GA for Europe. If EASA get's their way with this, they will put tens of thousands of people out of work, factually destroy their livelihoods and render their planes worthless. This in return will mean a meltdown in prices of the said planes but at the same time take away a huge amount of work from maintenance organisations with FAA approval and render these people jobless. That might well mean that prices for the remaining EU registered fleet may go up as well. And it will prove that EASA can get away with everything. Not a good perspective.
We might as well start looking for new shores now.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AN2
.
I have spoken with a Barrister today and although aviation is not his area he did confirm what I believed to be the case.
That is there are European Laws which would be breached by some of these proposals and EASA would be sued for losses in his opinion successfully for £millions.
AOPA mentioned that in their article so all is not lost
The problem is we all voice opinions me included as fact while none of us are lawyers.
True to form EASA are coming over as bumbling idiots something they were nearly disbanded for doing before. Their job was not to reinvent the wheel.
Pace
All in all I believe this issue will make or brake GA for Europe. If EASA get's their way with this, they will put tens of thousands of people out of work, factually destroy their livelihoods and render their planes worthless. This in return will mean a meltdown in prices of the said planes but at the same time take away a huge amount of work from maintenance organisations with FAA approval and render these people jobless. That might well mean that prices for the remaining EU registered fleet may go up as well. And it will prove that EASA can get away with everything. Not a good perspective
I have spoken with a Barrister today and although aviation is not his area he did confirm what I believed to be the case.
That is there are European Laws which would be breached by some of these proposals and EASA would be sued for losses in his opinion successfully for £millions.
AOPA mentioned that in their article so all is not lost
The problem is we all voice opinions me included as fact while none of us are lawyers.
True to form EASA are coming over as bumbling idiots something they were nearly disbanded for doing before. Their job was not to reinvent the wheel.
Pace