EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[JW411]

Or else try:

Programs
Accessories
System Tools
Character Map

[bookworm]

Wow, where did you find the "ß" ??

You mean they don't teach you that in the FAA/IR course?? Shocking...

[thore]

You mean they don't teach you that in the FAA/IR course??

Well, no, for this you have to go the European approach. Typing courses are between inner ear anatomy and Chinese Wall architecture...

[Thomascl605]

MJ, you have the wrong info on the GCAA. The GCAA website states that they still do carry out validations.

Also, the main school that carries out the conversions over there says that only one examination (Air Law) is required to convert your licence to GCAA.

Your comment about ab initio students there studying JAA for their licence beggars belief. UAE are not exactly part of the EU.

To recap.

1. Japan - conversion JAA/FAA to JCAB, it would seem all that is required is Air Law and Radio exams. Oh, and ground school for your type rating - standard stuff. You can then fly Jap reg Aircraft.
2. GCAA - conversion JAA/FAA to GCAA. You take one exam - Air Law, you can then fly UAE Aircraft.

The above two examples that you said mirror a conversion from FAA or other non ICAO to JAA are way off the mark.

3. FAA or non ICAO to JAA - 14 written exams, huge fees and huge amount of time required to pass them (6 months of study before actually taking them). IR coversion, also huge fees and isn't done overnight.

All this and I couldn't give a stuff about flying a G / D or other EU reg Aircraft at the end of it.
No, the above may in the future be required to actually fly an Aircraft that -
I'm already legal and licenced to fly under FAA, and have been for many years without incident.

How can you not understand my own viewpoint ?

[mad_jock]

We will have to disagree on the GCAA stuff as it costs over $8000 to convert an ATPL once you get all the permits etc sorted out depending which emirate you are dealing with and what link your company has to a Royal.

And I can see the view point that you don't like the idea that a loophole is going to be shut that allowed you to operate in Europe like you have been doing and its going to effect your job. And JAR pilot can just jump on a plane for a week in the states and come back dual rated.

But as I keep going back to

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?

None of you have answered that one.

The ATPL to ATP is exactly the same as ATP to ATPL as far as I can see.

We both have to do the theory exams.

We both have to get a medical.

We both have to sit a flight test.

Or have I got it wrong?

To me it seems like currently there is a common transfer arrangment.

[Pace]

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?

None of you have answered that one.

Mad Jock

I can quite happily answer that for you with ease. For decades foreign reg has been a legal and accepted means of operation. In all other walks of life such a long period of accepted practice become itself set in law. Ie in planning law an established usage becomes a right in law. That is just a small example.

In my own case I wanted to fly private jets and went the FAA rather than JAA/CAA way because most private jets in Europe were foreign reg.
That cost me a lot of time and money and resulted in an income and employment which I have enjoyed.

Someone decides NO more at a flash of a pen and in that flash of a pen I loose my work, am expected to find £1000s to continue what i am already doing and am literally regarded as a novice if I want to convert.

Is that right? or does someone hold a responsibility towards not just me but many thousands who could be badly damaged financially by changing the rules at such a late stage from a practice that has been going for decades.
I know the moral answer to that I only hope the regulators do to and address their own responsibilities to us.

Then presume that they have the right to permently operate

But that is just it! decades of legal operation in my book equals permanent operation?

To me it seems like currently there is a common transfer arrangment

Fine as long as someone picks up the bill which I should not have to meet in money or time to carry on what I am already doing ie dont treat my ATP and experience as if I am a novice pilot starting from almost scratch which sadly is the case. Airline pilots of heavy aircraft have a much easier transfer that business jet pilots why???

Pace

[mad_jock]

Thats very well put Pace thankyou.

Are you guys all self employed?

Unfortunately I don't believe anything to do with European regulation has any form of moral repercussion thought process at all.

Although on the license transfer side of things I would be in exactly the same situation going the other way.

Still the principle of the loophole I disagree with and think it should be stopped. The method of shutting it and shall we say grandfather rights need to be worked on.

But I really can't see anyone other than the affected people fighting for your cause.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

Although on the license transfer side of things I would be in exactly the same situation going the other way.

Still the principle of the loophole I disagree with and think it should be stopped. The method of shutting it and shall we say grandfather rights need to be worked on.

Mad_jock,

At a high level the licence transfer is the same, it as always is in the detail. I know nothing about ATPL level transfer. However, at the PPLIR rating level level we have the
JAA ->FAA process is
1 - Take and pass 60 question knowledge test (probably 2 weeks of study for the FAA differences), exam available online and inexpensive
2 - Present oneself and ones JAA licence and medical to demonstrate can speak English
3 - Take BFR checkride (in this case likely to be a combined IPC and general hour with an instructor)

FAA-> JAA process
1 - Minimum of 15 hours training in a FTO
2 - Take and pass 7 exams (in the UK given in a very limited number of places and dates)
3 - Pass an initial flight test
4 - Get a class 2 (but with class 1 audio)

FAA->EASA process (as currently documented)
1 - 50/5 hours training in a FTO
2 - Pass all exams
3 - Pass an initial flight test
4 - Get a class 2 (but with class 1 audio)


The steps are broadly similar, yes. However, the cost and reasonableness are grossly disproportionate.

-----------------
You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about N-reg ops. Unfortunately, to the extent your concerns involve Jets, the EASA proposals will not help you in the slightest to close your perceived loop hole.

There is no attack on N-reg as such, it is an attack on pilots, as well as some bonkers drafting - by targeting the law on where the operator is based rather than on where the aircraft or the pilot is based.

So for example, a UK company that operates an N-Reg and has the operating entity in Oxford will clearly be effected. This will mean that if this company is operating their jet in New York, they will be required to have crew with EASA licences to be legal in the eyes of EASA and FAA licences to be legal in the eyes of everyone else. It is very strange EASA is going to force all EU (and other EASA member states) to file a difference that they are going to define the FCL requirements for foreign aircraft operating outside the EASA area. This company will either fire its current pilots, help them retrain, or go for the following option.

My UK company now changes its organisation, its ultimate holding company is listed on whatever exchange they feel provides best access to capital, they consolidate through a NV based Co (for obvious tax flexibility), they have a Delaware sub that owns, flight plans, manages the maintenance, etc. for several jets and despatches the particular aircraft (which lives at Oxford). Who is this aircraft's operator and where are they resident.

Now at the PPL level this is just too big a PITA to get involved with.

So the summary of the current EASA proposal is
1 - EASA is attempting, through a flawed leverage logic, to open up US commercial markets and poke the US Congress in the eye for disrespecting the EU
2 - EASA may be attempting to force N-Reg jet operators into the EASA regulatory structure. In this class of aircraft, the EASA/JAA structure of small AOC jet ops is statistically significantly more dangerous than the FAA private jet structure.
3 - EASA is attempting to do this by introducing the undefined term of [residence of operator]
4 - For Jet operators, they have many advantages (in terms of maintaining market value, legal global maintenance, selection, modifications, better safety) for operating N, so they will continue
5 - Jet pilots will either be screwed or their companies will by pass the rules through a small change in corporate structures.
6 - PPLIRs (as it stands) have to go back to ground zero for the IR (or lobby hard, or quickly go for JAA transition training)

[youngskywalker]

Mad jock, does your company (name removed) still operate an N registered Citation jet? I believe it was owned by your boss for company use.

Not being funny, it's a genuine question!

[bookworm]

Someone decides NO more at a flash of a pen and in that flash of a pen I loose my work, am expected to find £1000s to continue what i am already doing

I hope you'll be petitioning the Chancellor, with the same vigour, not to close those long-established tax loopholes that have been used perfectly legally for years by those seeking to avoid paying UK tax. Many of them are accepted practices, and those who use them to evade UK tax have made considerable investments which will be wasted if the loopholes are closed.

[Thomascl605]

MJ, any answer for Young Skywalker ? (name removed)

Just a thought, you may wan't to get your Aircraft de-iced properly this winter. We wouldn't wan't another incident like last year would we ?

Also, having a standby crew that it qualified to fly to ALL destinations is a very good idea too. Then, if one of your Pilots is ill he/she wont feel pressurised into flying.

As I said in my postings before, safety is everything.

[Fuji Abound]

perfectly legally for years by those seeking to avoid paying UK tax. Many of them are accepted practices, and those who use them to evade UK tax

Bookie

I think you are confusing your evades with your avoids.

[Thomascl605]

Or maybe there's no study material in the 14 exams under JAA to stress the importance of De-Icing and Aircraft. Perhaps they deem "inner ear anatomy" to be more important.

[bookworm]

I think you are confusing your evades with your avoids

You're quite right Fuji. I humbly apologise to all the good-for-nothing freeloaders whom I have wrongly criminalised in my second sentence. I meant, of course, to use the word "avoid" again.

[mad_jock]

No not with them any more. Bit off naming companys!! Or is meant as a method of bullying to get me to shut up and go away so everyone can say there is a united front in europe to keep the current situation?

And yes that incident did shock quite a few people especially as most of us had been trained by the Captain at some point. I don't know what it is about Wick it seems a bit of a Jonah. There is another one at Wick that gives you even more potential to rip the piss outa JAR standards.

Yes icing is covered in the JAR exams.

But there have been enough cockups about de-icing what ever the nationality around the world. I wonder how many times we have all seen the MD videos. And I have seen N reg's going without de-icing/anti-icing in freezing fog in Scandiland, where as I have been setting myself up for a post flight being moaned at because I have just had a 2 part type IV de-ice/anti-ice with resulting grounding for inspection afterwards.

I hadn't realised they had hardened up the requirements. Those are taking the piss. But I presume are an opening price before the bartering begins.

Anyway I have flu like symptoms and haven't been near booze for 6 days, linked with having operated in a malaria region and being a blood bank for the little bastards. I am off to find an African doctor. If you don't get a reply you will know whats happened.

[flybymike]

Quote:
I think you are confusing your evades with your avoids

You're quite right Fuji. I humbly apologise to all the good-for-nothing freeloaders whom I have wrongly criminalised in my second sentence. I meant, of course, to use the word "avoid" again.

Not to mention the criminally irresponsible UK government which has only recently removed tax avoidance measures on NSI savings schemes, but yet still persists in promoting tax avoidance on ISAs

[tdbristol]

Meeting 'local country laws'

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?

The fact is that airlines do it all the time. Ryanair have a large base at Marseille; the aircraft are based there, as Ryanair clearly state - yet the airplanes are Irish registered. Given the above argument, Ryanair should be forced to re-register their Marseille-based aircraft as F-reg. Likewise Easyjet in their various bases (and the other airlines, European, US and otherwise..) should be forced to re-register their aircraft to the country in which they are based.
Yes, these examples are in JAA/EASA land but the rules do vary from one country to the next within the EU. And there are many examples outside and crossing the EU border, i.e.where an aircraft is registered in the EU and is based outside, or vice-versa..

Are Ryanair, Easyjet and all the others acting in a poor manner by "opting out and bypassing local laws"? Are they "disobeying local laws"?
I would say not - to me it seems that they are obeying the laws, just using the registration that suits them, and that doing what they are doing - and what N-reg airplane operators in Europe are doing - is entirely reasonable and consistent with what is done the world over in aviation.

Having a different registration to the physical base of the aircraft is considered reasonable and accepted pretty much everywhere (even in places such as Russia - for example, AviaNova, which is a low-cost operator which only flies in Russia, have all Irish registered aircraft).

[Cathar]

Are Ryanair, Easyjet and all the others acting in a poor manner by "opting out and bypassing local laws"? Are they "disobeying local laws"?

The "local laws" for commercial aviation in the EU are now set by the EU and not the member States. Ryanair, Easyjet etc are not third country operators nor are they utilising third country aircraft. There are EU airlines operating EU registered aircraft within the EU avaiton single market in accordance with the aviation safety regulations established by the EU.

Having a different registration to the physical base of the aircraft is considered reasonable and accepted pretty much everywhere (even in places such as Russia - for example, AviaNova, which is a low-cost operator which only flies in Russia, have all Irish registered aircraft

Commercial operations are subject to extensive regulation and operators may normally only operate foreign registered aircraft with the approval of their national regulators and in accordance with any conditions that they may impose. I believe that the AviaNove aircraft are subject to an agreement under Article 83bis of the Chicago Convention which transfers regualtory responsibility for maintenance and pilot licensing to the Russian authorities. This is certainly the case for Bermudan registered aircraft operated by Aeroflot and other Russian airlines.

[Fuji Abound]

You're quite right Fuji. I humbly apologise to all the good-for-nothing freeloaders whom I have wrongly criminalised in my second sentence.

Bookie

You should not give up or reduce your drinking or smoking habits lest you join the legions of tax avoiders.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by Cathar

The "local laws" for commercial aviation in the EU are now set by the EU and not the member States.

I think you meant 'will soon be set by EASA'. As far as I know the UK ANO and the UK AOC requirements are set by the UK Government (following the guidance of JAA where they see fit). The proposed changes will affect non-EU states that are members of EASA as well.