EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[Thomascl605]

Mike,

If I am being told by EASA that I also require a JAA licence in order to continue flying an "N" reg Aircraft, having already flown for many years accident free legally with an FAA licence, then this is an illegal action by EASA.

EASA do not write policy for the FAR's for flight training for the issuing of an FAA licence. I have fully completed all FAA required training for the issue of the appropriate legal FAA licence to fly an American registered Aircraft.

So, until such time as the FAR's contain wording that in order to fly "N" reg Aircraft a JAA licence is also required, I deem the current proposal by EASA to be just what I said before - Illegal.

With EASA trying to force Pilots into training that isn't contained within the framework of the FAA syllabus is something that they cannot and wont get away with. I don't believe that there is currently a section within LASORS that stipulates a requirement of also obtaining an FAA licence prior to flying a "G" reg aircraft.

[mad_jock]

If anyone tried to get in my aircraft only wearing any colour of underpants they would get told to sod off.

I do hope that was a second language mistake

[Thomascl605]

Mike,

Perhaps the following explains my legal understanding of the proposals,

FRAUD.

The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud.

[IO540]

If I am being told by EASA that I also require a JAA licence in order to continue flying an "N" reg Aircraft, having already flown for many years accident free legally with an FAA licence, then this is an illegal action by EASA.

It is not "illegal" because

- "we" voted for EU membership
- the EU has control over its members (except national defence and some other bits)

If the EU directed its members that everybody must wear pink underpants while riding a bike, we would have to do it.

That is how the EU works.

It is called a "level playing field"

The EU FCL proposals are not "illegal" but they are very bad news for many pilots who have been going about their stuff for many years. These proposals must not become law. A lot of lobbying is taking place right now and I am cautiously optimistic.

But as to the question of whether the EU can do this - the answer is a clear YES. They can also mandate the pink underpants while riding a bike. Sure, some legal challenges are possible, and indeed that avenue is being explored by various parties as we speak. But nobody is going to do anything unless the threat crystallises, or it about to.

[flybymike]

Jock will never cope with anyone inside his aeroplane who is not only wearing pink underpants but also riding a bike.........

[Pace]

Mike

Please dont get me wrong as I really do respect your writings and opinions.
I was purely motivated by your pink knickers statement and pointing out that even EASA cannot do anything they want without being answerable.

I would be worried about the pink knickers rule as some would be better covered by black trousers and remain that way while others would be off like a flash

Do EASA have any opinion or forthcoming regs on the mile high club as I am sure members would increase with the pink knicker rule

Where'd I say that? I was simply trying to point out that when you fly outside of your own national airspace you become subject to the laws of the country whose airspace you are in.

Mike thinking back to a ferry I did in a Citation S2 Florida to S Africa not that long ago the above could mean its possible to do that ferry requiring 14 sets of licences if all the countries on route took EASAs attitude! As stated

Madness.

Pace

[IO540]

Mr Seebohm said that any area where there is no EU regulation already, they must make some.

So I reckon the MHC flights will be regulated.

I wonder what form that will take? Perhaps Mr Berlusconi will offer his expert input?

Seriously, they must be AOC ops already. I am sure writing the AOC was a fun job

OTOH you could do them as trial lessons... aimed especially for couples who just met on speed dating.

[bookworm]

Where we will come unstuck if we are not vigilant is that EASA's Opinion will feed through the European Parliament into European Law, which will then become binding on the EU States, who will have to enact it into their own law. It's not EASA who make the law it is our own government.

On a point of clarification here, Part-FCL etc. are regulations, not directives. According to the Rome Treaty:

A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

There will be no transposition of the proposed rules into national law. You are of course correct in that EASA does not make the law. The European Parliament does.

[Pace]

Bookworm

being pedantic again but nothing laid out by EASA regarding N reg is regulations " Yet " suggestions in a talking shop which is what they are at present cannot be regulation until incorporated in law.

At present they are a mouthpiece of ideas? and not very good ideas at that!
100 million to produce that lot! No wonder the whole EU structure is under threat. If anything is criminal it is the waste of that amount of money which could have gone in hospitals or better causes.

This just makes you realise the amount of non productive and needless waste in our society!

Pace

[Thomascl605]

The proposal if made law would alter FAA flight training and therefore the FAR's would need to be rewritten to reflect this. Obviously they wont be as quite rightly the FAA wouldn't stand for such an intrusion into their licencing requirements. Why on earth would you need a JAA licence to fly an "N" reg ? As said before the current proposal is illegal

[iRaven]

Ladies/Gents

Instead of all the conjecture have you tried the Senior FAA Rep in London? Have a look at this PDF link:

http://www.iaopa.eu/mediaServlet/sto...un10/p20-22.pd

The last line is the really interesting bit:

"Also see www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/.
I would hope that she could stop of the conjecture on this thread!Failing that you’ll find the FAA’s people in London very approachable and helpful - e-mail tweet "DOT" t "DOT" coleman "AT" faa "DOT" gov in the first instance" - insert @ instead of "AT" and . instead of "DOT". OH! I give up! with Pprune! The e-mail address is on the second page of the PDF!!!


iRaven

[IO540]

Ms Coleman is well known, very intelligent, and I have met her.

However, the FAA cannot do anything about some other country deciding that every pilot flying in its airspace (N-reg or not) has to wear pink underpants, for example.

The earth is full of 3rd world countries which need an overfly permit. In fact that is pretty well the default position, once outside Europe. Again, nothing the FAA can do about that. It is a breach of ICAO but the countries that do these things couldn't give a damn.

What EASA is doing is not fit for a modern civilised country - one can say that for sure. But it is not unusual in "earth terms".

[bookworm]

being pedantic again but nothing laid out by EASA regarding N reg is regulations " Yet " suggestions in a talking shop which is what they are at present cannot be regulation until incorporated in law.

Yes, sorry, I should have been a little more precise. REGULATION (EC) No 216/2008 (The Basic Regulation), which is what regulates aircraft (and their pilots) used by an operator established or residing in the Community is law. Part-FCL etc. which lay out the details, are draft regulations.

[BillieBob]

OK, so to be absolutely clear, the bit that says "Pilots of aircraft....which are 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 shall comply with this Regulation" is already EU law. The only acceptable option, therefore, would seem to be for Part-FCL to recognise a third country licence (any third country licence) as equivalent to an EASA licence or to provide a method of conversion that does not involve anything more than a paperwork exercise. Why do I have this vision of Satan on ice skates?

[Pace]

It is not just N reg the CAA seem like saints! even the CAA seem despondant about the whole EASA thing.

This link makes worrying reading FAA or JAA

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/620/srg_l&...s_Sept2010.pdf


Pace

[IO540]

OK, so to be absolutely clear, the bit that says "Pilots of aircraft....which are 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 shall comply with this Regulation" is already EU law. The only acceptable option, therefore, would seem to be for Part-FCL to recognise a third country licence (any third country licence) as equivalent to an EASA licence or to provide a method of conversion that does not involve anything more than a paperwork exercise. Why do I have this vision of Satan on ice skates?

What happened is exactly what any crafty politician would do.

They drafted a "Basic Regulation" which was vague on all the essential points, and played to all the right prejudices.

Obviously, when you get a statement like ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community shall comply with this Regulation there is no way anybody will vote against it. It would be like arguing that convicted paedos should have greater access to children than at present. The alternative would be an admission that foreign reg planes can do as they please, which nobody would have voted for (but which is untrue, but almost nobody outside aviation knows that).

Bear in mind that 99% of the people voting don't know what they are voting on anyway. This is not the USA, where a large chunk of the legislature have PPLs. Most people who go into politics in Europe today are just people who failed in business or personal life and have big chips on their shoulders. A few are dreamers who want to fix the world but most of those types are just dumb.

You get a microcosm of this if you go to your local planning committee meeting. You get 11 people of whom at least 9 are totally clue-less and cannot even read a drawing of the garage which somebody wants to build. The meeting is dominated by 2 or at most 3 people, who have done deals outside the room on all the major projects, already.

Just watch that EU EASA video and the brainless shoe-licking questions from some of the MEPs.

What 99% of the MEPs who voted for the BR did not know is that the European CAAs already have plenty of power over foreign regs. They already ban them from doing any paid work (unless on an AOC) and they screw them around on stuff like getting training, foreign checkrides, etc. They can ground them if they are found dangerous (like an engine about to fall off a 747 at LHR). But if you draft things as above, you play to the prejudices of the MEPs, most of whom are self professed European intellectuals who equate America with John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and all the other cowboys, and of course we can't have those types in Europe. Especially in aviation, where the magic word "safety" so effectively squashes opposition from anybody who hasn't got a clue about the issues (which is at least 99% of those voting).

The stupidity of all this is in why didn't EASA/EU produce an FAA-like IR first, left it for a year or two, and see what the takeup is. The takeup would have been very substantial among all newcomers to the IFR scene. Then say 5 years later, they could have started screwing around with the N-reg scene.

[Pace]

The stupidity of all this is in why didn't EASA/EU produce an FAA-like IR first, left it for a year or two, and see what the takeup is. The takeup would have been very substantial among all newcomers to the IFR scene. Then say 5 years later, they could have started screwing around with the N-reg scene.

Because they have no intention and never had any intention of doing anything above what is already in the draft proposals.
that is what they want passsed as smoothly as posssible!
They are somewhat surprised at the level of opposition and have thrown in a few carrots of something they may do in the future. Once done and dusted especially when that dust settles they will do NOTHING!!! I would take bets on it.

Pace

[Mike Cross]

MHC flights have been known to prove fatal
MIA92FA051

[David Roberts]

Well they did not get their 1 mile high certificate.

[IO540]

That was only because they did not have an AOC.

AOC operations have a 100% safety record.

Their light bulbs never need changing, either

Well they did not get their 1 mile high certificate.

How do you know? Might have been worth it