EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[proudprivate]

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

Exactly. And to avoid legislative accidents, Parliament has the right to scrutinize and reject any regulation voted in comitology (such as the EASA Committee containing member states' representatives and EASA people).

Looking at the video and reading the reply from my MEP as well as the written questions asked by several MEPs in the EP Transport Committee, it looks as if the current proposal will have to go through a very substantial alteration or will get ditched.

Bear in mind that 99% of the people voting don't know what they are voting on anyway. This is not the USA,...

I disagree with the percentage, but yes at lot of stuff gets voted without individual M(E)P's aware of what gets voted and what the precise ramifications are. But the same is true for the US Congress (how many congressmen do you think have read the patriot act ?), the Scottish Parliament and yes, even your local council or the planning committee.

It is unavoidable. A TC MEP might be a specialist in Trans National Rail Transportation issues, but clueless on Aviation. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It certainly doesn't imply that they are dumb.

And here comes democracy at work. If a sufficient number of people that are vocal and intelligent (like most PPRuNe readers and contributors) write to their MEPs and voice their concerns, a beneficial outcome becomes likelier. [Note to reader : write to your MEP, again !]

Obviously there is fierce competition between many conflicting interests, so for the MEP it becomes a matter of judging their own accountability. You clearly see in the video who is a 100% supporter of GA, who is dead against and who has mixed interests. In the case of "dead against" combined with ignorance that might lead to the occasional "shoe licking", but I found it more the exception than the rule.

Finally, should the EASA Committee vote unfavorably (possible, but less likely now), and the European Parliament not scrutinize and vote against (possible, but at this stage very unlikely), then we still have the Court of First Instance to sue the Commission.

And there are additional lines of defense, potentially very damaging for the individual civil servants involved.

The stupidity of all this is in why didn't EASA/EU produce an FAA-like IR first

Indeed, here is were EASA has a lot to account for. Clearly a safety enhancing regulatory opportunity, thwarted by pecuniary vested interests...

[IO540]

I looked up the court of first instance.

This is above me legally but isn't there a general principle similar to "crown immunity" here in that nobody can challenge a law passed, on the grounds of economic damage?

That has certainly been the case in the UK. I did some enquiries back in 2005 when the UK DfT was going to kick out N-regs after 90 days' parking, and HM Govt would have been protected by Crown Immunity on that one.

[proudprivate]

This is above me legally but isn't there a general principle similar to "crown immunity" here in that nobody can challenge a law passed, on the grounds of economic damage?

In a procedure before the General Court (formerly known as CFI) :

Direct actions for annulment and actions for damages.


In a procedure before the European Court of Justice (usually as a second step):

A member state, the Commission, the Council of the European Union or the European Parliament may request the annulment or cancellation of an EU law. This may happen if an EU institution enacts a law that conflicts with the EU Treaties. If the ECJ agrees that the disputed law is contrary to the Treaties, it will declare the law null and void. Private individuals may also bring proceedings for annulment of an EU law if they can demonstrate that the disputed law affects them directly and individually.

As a topic of relevance transportation is specifically mentioned.



So no "crown immunity" at European level. Not even a crown at that.

[Fuji Abound]

I would put £100 into the pot if enough people wanted to bring a case and it was possible.

[proudprivate]

I would put £100 into the pot if enough people wanted to bring a case and it was possible.

there is already a pot being organised by the N-flyers (the november pool), used for lobbying but eventually if need be, to instruct a case before the CFI.

The website can easily be googled.

[David Roberts]

Responding to several who have raised the issue as to why EASA did not promote the drafting of a new IR for private flying (to replace JAR IR) at an early stage when the EASA remit was being extended to FCL; a few years ago I raised the need for a 'simplified' IR with the powers that be. I was told that if a new IR was to be built into the BR extension there was a political risk it would be kicked out and therefore lost for a long time, so the strategy was to take the JAR IR across to EASA FCL and then after things had settled down to start a new working group to develop a new IR.

Hence FCL.008 two years ago, for which the NPA is planned at the end of Q1/2011.

Providing what is published in this NPA is acceptable then the other issue is timing in relation to the main FCL implementation. On this point I have in the last year pressed for acceleration of FCL.008 output so as to catch up with the main FCL implementation. As there will be a three year transition post April 2012 then maybe a catch up will happen.

[IO540]

An overlap resulting in the "FCL008-IR" arriving before the other FCL measures will benefit those pilots who were about to embark on the IR route around the 2012 timeframe, but it won't help those who already fly N-regs and who, if the present proposals are implemented, will have to do the FCL008-IR.

The FCL008-IR appears similar to the current ICAO IR - JAA IR conversion route (which is around 15hrs dual plus all 7 exams) but with fewer exams.

The FCL008-IR also offers nothing to commercial (bizjet) pilots who will still have to do the whole 14-exam JAA CPL/IR to carry on flying foreign reg planes.

So a suitably phased FCL008-IR introduction would defuse some of the vitriol from this topic, but only that coming from private pilots who were about to start on their IR at the time. With the whole scene being quite slow moving (most IR holders are in this for the long term) the vast majority of (existing) IR holders, mostly FAA IRs, will not benefit from it.

Unless of course some EU CAA decides to offer a direct swap from an ICAO IR to the FCL008-IR. That will then defuse the vitriol from people like me...

That still leaves you with the most powerful group (in political terms) - the bizjet pilots, who will be facing 14 exams, but few of whom are exactly spring chickens... they will have the hardest time of all.

[englishal]

but it won't help those who already fly N-regs and who, if the present proposals are implemented, will have to do the FCL008-IR.

Actually I don't expect many "Private" flyers will bother, I expect many will just continue to fly as they do now and it will be up to the authorities to prove their residence / domicile - which to me seems unworkable - should they be ramp checked. In a ramp check, how could a French custom's man prove where I am domiciled?

I reckon a good business would be to set up a "Mailboxes etc.." in Alderney.

[soaringhigh650]

That still leaves you with the most powerful group (in political terms) - the bizjet pilots... they will have the hardest time of all.

Why would they have the "hardest time of all" if FCL.008 doesn't affect them?

It shouldn't be any different to what they need to do currently in order to get a CPL or ATPL.

If at all, the CPL/ATPL written components of the IR should just be shifted out for the PPL, and placed into the papers needed to qualify for the CPL/ATPL.

So the PPLIR written syllabus shrinks and the CPL/ATPL written syllabus enlarges but the overall study time should remain the same (for the CPL/ATPL).

[IO540]

how could a French custom's man prove where I am domiciled?

That's true, but it gets better -

how could a French custom's man prove where the "operator" is "resident"?

Yes, indeed, having a non-EU mailing address will throw any casual regulatory enquiry.

To throw the next less casual enquiry you will want the registered owner to be non-EU, which they will be for most N-regs, and which can be arranged for any reg.

Any enforcement will have to involve an examination of journey logs, which are not mandatory on private flights, and which are meaningless anyway for people operating from non-towered locations.

Now, it has taken me 30 secs to type this. If I can work this out in 30 secs.........

I simply think that nobody is going to bother enforcing this - except maybe the Germans. I can certainly avoid landing in Germany. The infrastructure is just not in place and nobody is going to spend money on it.

Why would they have the "hardest time of all" if FCL.008 doesn't affect them?

FCL008 is something else. The FCL008-IR may offer a route for private IR holders but it will not be any good for commercial pilots, as far as I can tell. And if it was, you still have to do the JAA CPL which is, I think, 9 or 11 exams.

Those flying e.g. jets on FAA ATPs or CPL/IRs will have to do the whole JAA CPL/IR from scratch; 14 exams, flight training, the lot. There is some credit but not a lot. The FAA type rating will be usable directly but that's about it.

[soaringhigh650]

There is some credit but not a lot. The FAA type rating will be usable directly but that's about it.

Well, as you say they are the most powerful group in political terms, I am sure they will do something to make transfer of CPL/ATPL credits easier.

[Fuji Abound]

I simply think that nobody is going to bother enforcing this - except maybe the Germans. I can certainly avoid landing in Germany. The infrastructure is just not in place and nobody is going to spend money on it.

IO - yes but as you have often said yourself the problem is insurance.

Usually no one cares until something goes wrong and then the argument might be the flight was illegal with the possible reprecussions that could ensue.

Moreoever may people are uncomfortable doing something that they know to be illegal however stupid the law.

[IO540]

Quite true - I forgot

Perhaps one would nominate an operator (outside the EU) and make the disclosure to the insurer. If you hear nothing back, you should be covered, no?

[englishal]

How do people insure big jets and I have nver heard of a plane crash insurance claim not being paid out because the pilot did something dodgey??? How would it work if you were a brit, living in London and you were flying a UA 787 from New York to Singapore via EASA airspace???

[flybymike]

Perhaps one would nominate an operator (outside the EU) and make the disclosure to the insurer. If you hear nothing back, you should be covered, no?

I would imagine that an unacknowledged disclosure made on an intial proposal form would cover you (i.e. where the information is volunteered together with all of the other usual requested stuff) since it would be difficult for the insurer to deny that they had been given the information. The difficulty would come either at renewal, or as a result of a duty to disclose all relevant information as and when it becomes pertinent, since it would be much more likely that the insurers would pick up the disclosure at this stage (and possibly refuse cover) rather than when mixed in with a bunch of other stuff when it might be missed. Information provided separately at renewal or during the "insurance year" which is not specifically acknowleged could always lead to a denial that it was ever received in the first place, (unless one went to some lengths regarding proof of delievery which in itself would accentuate the matter to the insurers.)

[Fuji Abound]

Englishal

It is an interesting question to which I dont know the answers but would be interested to know.

My impression is that insurers do not readily deny liability particularly when there is no evidence that the regulatory transgression caused the accident. For example I know of cases of expired medicals where the insurers have still paid up. Clearly in cases where the regualtory deficiency may have contributed to the accident there may be more of an issue.

However it does seem to me in cases such as this if this legislation ever comes to pass operating an N reg in Europe without an EASA licence will be a flagarant regulatory breach and one which anyone doing so would perpetuate for a long period of time.

In my experiece (and I do deal with some bizjets operators) some are very particular to ensure regulatory compliance. Their owners are aware that they are operating very costly items of equipment. The crew (particularly on the larger stuff) will be subject to regular review and the their operations audited. For all of these reasons, and rightly so, there is often a team of jobsworths tasked with ensuring regulatory compliance, and their owners and more than likely to replace the crew if any shortcomings are found.

In reality those who say "sod it we will take our chances if it comes to it" I suspect will be the much smaller operator / private owner sometimes, but not always, owners who will worry about the consequences if, and when, they happen, and probably who can afford to cover most problems short of a major accident anyway.

I dont therefore see a large number of pilots being intentionally in breach if this ultimately comes to pass, any more than there are always a few pilots without current medicals. In short the majority will reluctantly either fall into line, hang up their headsets for one last time or move abroad.

I am not resigned. Every thing that can be done must be done to resist these proposals; I am optomistic that sense will prevail, very optomistic, but if it doesnt then I suspect both the battle and the war will have been lost.

[mad_jock]

As a private pilot knowing that your not compliant is one thing.

Operating none compliant if you have any form of pro license is setting yourself up for a jail term and or very hefty fine.

[BillieBob]

How would it work if you were a brit, living in London and you were flying a UA 787 from New York to Singapore via EASA airspace???

Since the operator is based outside the EU there is unlikely to be an issue.

[Jwscud]

How do people insure big jets and I have nver heard of a plane crash insurance claim not being paid out because the pilot did something dodgey??? How would it work if you were a brit, living in London and you were flying a UA 787 from New York to Singapore via EASA airspace??

For Commercial stuff, the Rome convention establishes the liability of operators for damage caused to third parties on the ground in foreign countries, but also limits their financial liability. It provides for a person on the ground to pursue a foreign operator in their own courts and the operator's country (if a signatory) is then bound to recognise and uphold that judgement.

Of course, if you'd done the utterly thrilling JAA Air Law, you too could study these thrilling facts

[englishal]

Ah I see. But I really meant how do airlines protect their assets in case say a pilot was flying illegally - I don't know, lets say he had an undeclared medical condition and broke a 747?

PS whats the British Standard number of JAA approved sunglasses?