EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOC ops are irrelevant to this.
If you satisfy your local CAA's inspectors, etc, you could stick a Mongolian registered B737 onto a UK AOC.
Might have to maintain it somewhere away from Mongolia though
I see no reason to think the EASA proposals will have any effect on the above, and the currently published stuff basically says it will carry on as before (crew training, maintenance safeguards etc).
If you satisfy your local CAA's inspectors, etc, you could stick a Mongolian registered B737 onto a UK AOC.
Might have to maintain it somewhere away from Mongolia though
I see no reason to think the EASA proposals will have any effect on the above, and the currently published stuff basically says it will carry on as before (crew training, maintenance safeguards etc).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you satisfy your local CAA's inspectors, etc, you could stick a Mongolian registered B737 onto a UK AOC.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the member State's call to allow the Mongolian 767 or not on its AOC.
Bookie
You should not give up or reduce your drinking or smoking habits lest you join the legions of tax avoiders.
You should not give up or reduce your drinking or smoking habits lest you join the legions of tax avoiders.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathar
No you can't. Article 12 of Regulation 1008/2008 requires that "aircraft used by a Community air carrier shall be registered, at the option of the Member State whose competent authority issues the operating licence, in its national register or within the Community."
???
Sounds like the member State's call to allow the Mongolian 767 or not on its AOC.
Originally Posted by Cathar
No you can't. Article 12 of Regulation 1008/2008 requires that "aircraft used by a Community air carrier shall be registered, at the option of the Member State whose competent authority issues the operating licence, in its national register or within the Community."
???
Sounds like the member State's call to allow the Mongolian 767 or not on its AOC.
..........shall be registered, at the option of the Member State whose competent authority issues the operating licence, in its national register or within the Community." . So the Member State can limit its AOC holders to aircraft on its own register or allow them to use any Community register. Last time I looked Mongolia was not in the EU.
Plenty of UK ops have N-reg planes and helis.
There was even a report of Tony Blair stepping out of an N-reg heli during an election campaign.
There was even a report of Tony Blair stepping out of an N-reg heli during an election campaign.
I suspect that the election flight may have been a freebie.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, the FAA have a pretty sensible conversion / validation process.
A JAA PPL (or greater) can turn up and be issued an FAA PPL without doing any flying. In Euroland a validation is straightforward (in the UK at least) as there is nothing required.
If a JAA PPL (or higher)/ IR turned up in the USA they could have a FAA PPL/IR by answering 60 questions on a computer. That is it. In Euroland an FAA PPL/IR has to do the mandatory ground school course, including mandatory day sessions, along with taking the exams at one of a handful of centres around the UK, then do a min of 15 hrs at an FTO. Realistically this could take 6-12 months.
If an experienced JAA CPL/IR turned up they could have an FAA CPL/IR by essentially sitting the combined CPL/IR flight test after a few hours with a freelance FAA CFII and a computerised written test. All very easy to achieve and achievable in say 2-3 weeks.
If an experienced FAA CPL/IR turns up in Europe wanting a JAA CPL/IR then it is at least 15 hrs training at an approved FTO (NB: that means probably not your own aeroplane), all the CPL/ATPL/IR exams, including approved ground school course and mandatory training sessions, plus the exams all taken at one of about 3 centres in the UK. Then the CPL training and flight test. Best case scenario for this conversion is 9 month to a year realistically (My mate who had 2000 hrs, FAA ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI took about 9 months).
A JAA PPL (or greater) can turn up and be issued an FAA PPL without doing any flying. In Euroland a validation is straightforward (in the UK at least) as there is nothing required.
If a JAA PPL (or higher)/ IR turned up in the USA they could have a FAA PPL/IR by answering 60 questions on a computer. That is it. In Euroland an FAA PPL/IR has to do the mandatory ground school course, including mandatory day sessions, along with taking the exams at one of a handful of centres around the UK, then do a min of 15 hrs at an FTO. Realistically this could take 6-12 months.
If an experienced JAA CPL/IR turned up they could have an FAA CPL/IR by essentially sitting the combined CPL/IR flight test after a few hours with a freelance FAA CFII and a computerised written test. All very easy to achieve and achievable in say 2-3 weeks.
If an experienced FAA CPL/IR turns up in Europe wanting a JAA CPL/IR then it is at least 15 hrs training at an approved FTO (NB: that means probably not your own aeroplane), all the CPL/ATPL/IR exams, including approved ground school course and mandatory training sessions, plus the exams all taken at one of about 3 centres in the UK. Then the CPL training and flight test. Best case scenario for this conversion is 9 month to a year realistically (My mate who had 2000 hrs, FAA ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI took about 9 months).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the FAA have a pretty sensible conversion / validation process.
However, they would apparently be prepared to operate such a scheme if the other country (meaning the USA) signed a bilateral treaty under which the EU gains all kinds of other goodies which are barely related to FCL.
The more I think about this, the more I think that linking the bilaterial-FCL stuff to the very wide ranging BASA is simply a con, proposed in the belief that (a) the currently negotiated BASA does not cover FCL and (b) the USA will never sign another BASA which covers FCL to the degree required to make it work in Europe.
So the Eurocrats can claim they tried but the USA did not play ball.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From IAOPA:
'Grandfather rights' changes the regulatory landscape
IAOPA is seeking advice from its Brussels lawyers over an EASA statement to the effect that it has no power to abolish any established national practice – a statement which opens up a whole new vista of regulatory possibility. The statement was made during a meeting to discuss the UK’s IMC rating, which Britain wants to retain but which some other European countries do not want. EASA’s representatives said anyone in Britain who had an IMC rating would be allowed to continue using it for life because EASA did not have the power to take away any privilege already granted by a national authority.
IAOPA’s lawyers have been asked to unearth the precise wording of whatever EU law allows this – it is certainly not aviation law – but it seems to offer a solution to some of the intractable problems associated with harmonising licences. In France it could allow the continuation of the brevet de base, which the rest of Europe does not want. For the UK, as well as the IMC rating it might solve the problem of the Basic Commercial Pilots Licence, a national licence which allows PPL instructors to carry on doing their jobs.
Martin Robinson says: “This is such a seismic shift in EASA’s position that it must be fully clarified in plain language. Often EASA hides behind legal semantics, a dreadful position to be in when you’re making aviation safety rules, and you can read many things into what they say. But this is too important.”
The UK IMC rating is a course of at least 15 hours which pilots are encouraged to complete after their PPL. It teaches them to keep control of an aircraft in IMC, and to return safely to the ground using whatever instrument approach is available. Tens of thousands of British pilots have obtained the rating over the past 40 years, and it is seen as one of the main reasons why the UK’s safety rate is so good, despite its unpredictable maritime climate. EASA’s one-size-fits-all approach means the IMC rating cannot be adopted across Europe because some countries do not allow IMC flight outside controlled airspace. AOPA UK, with the backing of the UK CAA, seeks to preserve the IMC rating for future generations of pilots as well as those with ‘grandfather rights’.
'Grandfather rights' changes the regulatory landscape
IAOPA is seeking advice from its Brussels lawyers over an EASA statement to the effect that it has no power to abolish any established national practice – a statement which opens up a whole new vista of regulatory possibility. The statement was made during a meeting to discuss the UK’s IMC rating, which Britain wants to retain but which some other European countries do not want. EASA’s representatives said anyone in Britain who had an IMC rating would be allowed to continue using it for life because EASA did not have the power to take away any privilege already granted by a national authority.
IAOPA’s lawyers have been asked to unearth the precise wording of whatever EU law allows this – it is certainly not aviation law – but it seems to offer a solution to some of the intractable problems associated with harmonising licences. In France it could allow the continuation of the brevet de base, which the rest of Europe does not want. For the UK, as well as the IMC rating it might solve the problem of the Basic Commercial Pilots Licence, a national licence which allows PPL instructors to carry on doing their jobs.
Martin Robinson says: “This is such a seismic shift in EASA’s position that it must be fully clarified in plain language. Often EASA hides behind legal semantics, a dreadful position to be in when you’re making aviation safety rules, and you can read many things into what they say. But this is too important.”
The UK IMC rating is a course of at least 15 hours which pilots are encouraged to complete after their PPL. It teaches them to keep control of an aircraft in IMC, and to return safely to the ground using whatever instrument approach is available. Tens of thousands of British pilots have obtained the rating over the past 40 years, and it is seen as one of the main reasons why the UK’s safety rate is so good, despite its unpredictable maritime climate. EASA’s one-size-fits-all approach means the IMC rating cannot be adopted across Europe because some countries do not allow IMC flight outside controlled airspace. AOPA UK, with the backing of the UK CAA, seeks to preserve the IMC rating for future generations of pilots as well as those with ‘grandfather rights’.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this also ends the problem of the UK-PPL holders. If this is correct, they cannot deprive lifetime holders of the UK PPL of the ICAO compliant status...... or can they??
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm
I cannot see how you can make a comparison between tax loopholes and pilots making a living flying N Reg in Europe? One is avoiding paying taxes which are due by exploiting holes in the tax laws or exploiting grey areas which are open to interpretation. Tax evasion is just that and it's the governments duty to close off loopholes which means income due to the tax office gets paid.
The use of foreign Reg with correct foreign Reg licences has become a legal and established practice in Europe under which a whole industry has evolved. This established practice has not been happening for a few years but for decades.
It is the established and legal practice which is relevant as in most other areas of established practice in law.
Europe also has a duty to protect it's citizens livelihoods and employment which under the FCL changes it would
Damage not protect.
I feel should EASA go ahead with these plans they would need to address existing European FAA licence holders with exemptions for considerable time to minimise the large scale damage they would do.
Pace
I cannot see how you can make a comparison between tax loopholes and pilots making a living flying N Reg in Europe? One is avoiding paying taxes which are due by exploiting holes in the tax laws or exploiting grey areas which are open to interpretation. Tax evasion is just that and it's the governments duty to close off loopholes which means income due to the tax office gets paid.
The use of foreign Reg with correct foreign Reg licences has become a legal and established practice in Europe under which a whole industry has evolved. This established practice has not been happening for a few years but for decades.
It is the established and legal practice which is relevant as in most other areas of established practice in law.
Europe also has a duty to protect it's citizens livelihoods and employment which under the FCL changes it would
Damage not protect.
I feel should EASA go ahead with these plans they would need to address existing European FAA licence holders with exemptions for considerable time to minimise the large scale damage they would do.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st Nov 2010 at 17:42.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting bit of reliable info I got today! While there is lobbying to retain N reg there is an equal group lobbying to remove N reg.
Surprise Surprise JAA flight schools who see a lucrative chunk of business in converting some of the 10000 FAA licenced pilots to EASA licences.
Is it not a shame that there are so many self interests projecting themselves as on a higher ground.
Why dont they just say we see a ripe market removing 10s of £1000s off cash short pilots instead of parading with false claims?
Equally a shame that they cannot see that a healthy GA achieved through deregulation is the only real way to prolonged prosperity.
Pace
Surprise Surprise JAA flight schools who see a lucrative chunk of business in converting some of the 10000 FAA licenced pilots to EASA licences.
Is it not a shame that there are so many self interests projecting themselves as on a higher ground.
Why dont they just say we see a ripe market removing 10s of £1000s off cash short pilots instead of parading with false claims?
Equally a shame that they cannot see that a healthy GA achieved through deregulation is the only real way to prolonged prosperity.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FTO system has AIUI always "lobbied" against N-regs.
But IME it was usually in the form of spreading dirt at every opportunity. Even UK AOPA, with its large number of corporate members, was very ambivalent on this topic for years - until they got in line behind N-reg, very recently.
The question is what exactly are the FTOs doing now? Are they paying a professional lobbying firm in Brussels? Now, post-EASA, that's where it matters.
But IME it was usually in the form of spreading dirt at every opportunity. Even UK AOPA, with its large number of corporate members, was very ambivalent on this topic for years - until they got in line behind N-reg, very recently.
The question is what exactly are the FTOs doing now? Are they paying a professional lobbying firm in Brussels? Now, post-EASA, that's where it matters.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
Your are making the same mistake as Bookie and confusing two very different things, even if some would argue avoidance is just legal evasion.
As to a hidden agenda I am surprised you are surprised. There is a very significant anti N reg lobby almost entirely motivated by a range of vested interests; there always has been. Some of the same group are also against the IMCr whcih is why this has also struggled.
Their arguments never have anything to do with safety but are based on monetary gain, custonianship, superiority or a combination.
Tax evasion is just that and it's the governments duty to close off loopholes which means income due to the tax office gets paid.
As to a hidden agenda I am surprised you are surprised. There is a very significant anti N reg lobby almost entirely motivated by a range of vested interests; there always has been. Some of the same group are also against the IMCr whcih is why this has also struggled.
Their arguments never have anything to do with safety but are based on monetary gain, custonianship, superiority or a combination.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting snippet but shows how the present FCL proposals could fall foul of EEC law.
Concerning pilots who are commercial and have operated FAA for maybe decades is age descrimination.
As matters stand many would loose their positions due to the timescale required to convert while holding a full time occupation flying.
Older pilots coming to the autumn of their careers even if converted would be unlikely to achieve an EASA position.
Young pilots would be able to spread the cost and get that cost back over the many earning years ahead.
Older pilots would not be able to do so with their future limited career time.
As the FCL proposals stand. (We are talking about a considerable sum of money and time to convert to EASA ATP)
In that sense the present FCL proposals could be seen as discriminatory against older pilots.
Excemptions on FAA licences to Fly JAA aircraft are already possible on AOC ops. There is no reason why EASA could not allow renewable annual excemptions to all existing FAA licenced but European citizan pilots commercial or private old or young. In that way EASA get the control they seem to want as the annual excemptions could have conditions which must be met for them to be issued and renewed?
Pace
Concerning pilots who are commercial and have operated FAA for maybe decades is age descrimination.
As matters stand many would loose their positions due to the timescale required to convert while holding a full time occupation flying.
Older pilots coming to the autumn of their careers even if converted would be unlikely to achieve an EASA position.
Young pilots would be able to spread the cost and get that cost back over the many earning years ahead.
Older pilots would not be able to do so with their future limited career time.
As the FCL proposals stand. (We are talking about a considerable sum of money and time to convert to EASA ATP)
In that sense the present FCL proposals could be seen as discriminatory against older pilots.
Excemptions on FAA licences to Fly JAA aircraft are already possible on AOC ops. There is no reason why EASA could not allow renewable annual excemptions to all existing FAA licenced but European citizan pilots commercial or private old or young. In that way EASA get the control they seem to want as the annual excemptions could have conditions which must be met for them to be issued and renewed?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 5th Nov 2010 at 17:34.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flew out of Moscow Domodedevo airport today, taxied past the rows of Russian airlines with their VP, EI and other foreign registered aircraft. Wet leases ?, whatever the reason, you can probably assume that the reason that most of those aircraft are not on the Russian register is because of the difficulties of working within the Russian bureacratic system on a whole number of levels...
Sometimes I think that the EU is working hard to emulate the SU and might get there one day if they try hard enough
Sometimes I think that the EU is working hard to emulate the SU and might get there one day if they try hard enough
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the number is closer to 5414 in total.
Not saying this in a positive or negative way but one needs to consider:
- Many pilots withold their address (like me and most others I know who are on there); this will under-state the European population
- There is clear evidence that the FAA does not regularly update the 'last medical' dates in their public database; this will also under-state the European population. This may go undetected for years because while an individual will surely check (just once) whether his new IR or whatever shows up on the database, and eventually make a fuss if it doesn't, he is unlikely to check his last medical goes up there.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I think that the EU is working hard to emulate the SU and might get there one day if they try hard enough
As a lot of EU countries are ex SU It doesnt take a lot of emulating
10540
The estimate was approx 10K so probably fairly close to reality at that figure.
At a low estimate to convert of £5K you are looking at a market for the flight schools of £50 to £100 million alone.
No wonder they are against N reg
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of these FAA pilots, like me, held / hold the JAA certificate before the FAA. In other-words I have standalone FAA certs, as well as standalone JAA certs and medicals. If this N reg thing really happens, there won't be any UK flight school getting any money out of me as I have nothing to convert. I have also learned the new trick of using CRI's to revalidate my JAA certificate, who don't charge, fly because they enjoy flying, and are very happy to fly in my aeroplane.
But more to the point, if N reg is a threat to UK flight schools, why don't they expand their business to offer N reg training? It is far easier to do this than one might imagine and there are plenty of instructors around. All these FTOs with expensive FPNT IIs can easily get them FAA approved to conduct FAA instrument training / IR re-validations (without even stepping into an aeroplane) - in fact many might already be approved for FAA use. This costs them nothing / very little, yet gives them to opportunity to offer a service that is clearly wanted.
But more to the point, if N reg is a threat to UK flight schools, why don't they expand their business to offer N reg training? It is far easier to do this than one might imagine and there are plenty of instructors around. All these FTOs with expensive FPNT IIs can easily get them FAA approved to conduct FAA instrument training / IR re-validations (without even stepping into an aeroplane) - in fact many might already be approved for FAA use. This costs them nothing / very little, yet gives them to opportunity to offer a service that is clearly wanted.