EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Pace,
I hear you. Hopefully so will the EU Commission.
Well, let's hope that this time it's not only us who blow our collective tops, but the EU Commission as well and boot the load of them to where they belong.
I've seen enough... even though my own aircraft is EASA reg and so are most of my licenses, I've seen the carnage in my old Antonov crowd. Since that country joined in, the whole fleet is grounded and awaiting sale or scrap. Mind, btw, quite a few of those planes now flying in Europe would be targeted by this as well. High time something was done on a broad basis. Not just fix this one, but fix the whole thing once and for all. Ah well, hope dies last.
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.
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.
I've seen enough... even though my own aircraft is EASA reg and so are most of my licenses, I've seen the carnage in my old Antonov crowd. Since that country joined in, the whole fleet is grounded and awaiting sale or scrap. Mind, btw, quite a few of those planes now flying in Europe would be targeted by this as well. High time something was done on a broad basis. Not just fix this one, but fix the whole thing once and for all. Ah well, hope dies last.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from AOPA USA /Cirrus complain
AOPA Online: EU poised to vote on pilot certification
The latest from AOPA USA and Cirrus lodge complaint many of their sales being into Europe
Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.
Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.
“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.
The latest from AOPA USA and Cirrus lodge complaint many of their sales being into Europe
Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.
Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.
“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spain or Thailand
Age: 52
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any country in the world today that forces a 'resident' pilot to have a national license regardless of aircraft registry? i.e. does the precedent already exist?
1. Each and every flight requires a flightplan. No exceptions to this.
2. If it is a flight of a non-thai aircraft, it will need a special permit from the DCA in BKK which will inform every airspace agency or airport in Thailand of your flight and flightplan. You don't have it, your flightplan will not get accepted when presenting it. It takes about a week to get the permit for the flight, so this avoids effectively someone flying spontaneously and for his own joy a non-thai aircraft.
3. Of course, with an FAA-license you cannot fly Thai-registered aircraft. You will need an endorsement and pass some ridiculous tests on Thai airlaw, etc.
Airlines will go through this procedure for every flight in and out of Thailand. No big deal for an airline with schedule flights, but quite a pain in the butt for Joe with his N-registered Mooney who wants to pick up his 100$-Rice in Phuket.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the above (a flight plan / permission for every flight, etc) is probably true for most 3rd world countries. GA as we know it doesn't exist there. I am not sure that showing that some BongoBongoLand offers a handy precedent for EASA helps this discussion 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Now perhaps you'll explain which NAA has licensed the bank as an airline?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
Thinking out of the Box! Aircraft owner employs an IOM operator to operate his jet which is IOM too. You as a commercial pilot are employed by IOM operators and fly and operate it in the UK. IOM operations are just an IOM office.
You as the pilot are carrying out all the operational duties as per normal but on behalf of IOM operations and recieve your payments from the owner through IOM operations.
How that could be made to work for an owner/ pilot?
Pace
Thinking out of the Box! Aircraft owner employs an IOM operator to operate his jet which is IOM too. You as a commercial pilot are employed by IOM operators and fly and operate it in the UK. IOM operations are just an IOM office.
You as the pilot are carrying out all the operational duties as per normal but on behalf of IOM operations and recieve your payments from the owner through IOM operations.
How that could be made to work for an owner/ pilot?
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operator is a poorly defined word. In some cases it is very easy to establish who the operator is.
For example, Mike's BA example, some division within BA (or possibly the main holding company) has an Air Operators Certificate and the referenced aircraft are operated under this certificate. Hence the issue of who the operator is crystal clear.
Equally, in Pace's case (a professional pilot flying on behalf of and at the instruction of the aircraft owner and not responsible for maintenance in anyway beyond the normal PIC responsibilities) it should be very clear that Pace is not the operator, 'just' the PIC/Commander.
What is much less clear in this case is who would be deemed to be the operator.
Hypothetical Case
---------------
Say for example Pace works for Williams (a Woking based F1 team that races globally) and bases their Citation at EGLF. Say Williams has a subsidiary based in Delaware (to facilitate paying its highly paid staff offshore) and this subsidiary is the owner of the aircraft, coordinates the maintenance and receives dispatch requests from the rest of the Williams group.
Is the Operator the company that owns, flight plans, and despatches the plane, or the Group company that requested the dispatch, or the Holding company (which for the sake of argument is a Netherlands Antilles co for tax reasons) or some intermediate entity of EASA's choosing.
-----------------
Corporate jet operators are on the N for many reasons, and I doubt any of the reasons include helping pilots avoid sitting the IR exams! As such they will stay N and will either just tell their pilots to knuckle down or arrange a structure to avoid the problem. They will surely choose the option that is easier and cheaper from the owner's perspective.
EAl,
I am pretty sure the language is Member State (not EU, ECC, or anything else). I also believe it is a Member of EASA they are referencing. I note Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland appear to be EASA members but not part of the EU.
For example, Mike's BA example, some division within BA (or possibly the main holding company) has an Air Operators Certificate and the referenced aircraft are operated under this certificate. Hence the issue of who the operator is crystal clear.
Equally, in Pace's case (a professional pilot flying on behalf of and at the instruction of the aircraft owner and not responsible for maintenance in anyway beyond the normal PIC responsibilities) it should be very clear that Pace is not the operator, 'just' the PIC/Commander.
What is much less clear in this case is who would be deemed to be the operator.
Hypothetical Case
---------------
Say for example Pace works for Williams (a Woking based F1 team that races globally) and bases their Citation at EGLF. Say Williams has a subsidiary based in Delaware (to facilitate paying its highly paid staff offshore) and this subsidiary is the owner of the aircraft, coordinates the maintenance and receives dispatch requests from the rest of the Williams group.
Is the Operator the company that owns, flight plans, and despatches the plane, or the Group company that requested the dispatch, or the Holding company (which for the sake of argument is a Netherlands Antilles co for tax reasons) or some intermediate entity of EASA's choosing.
-----------------
Corporate jet operators are on the N for many reasons, and I doubt any of the reasons include helping pilots avoid sitting the IR exams! As such they will stay N and will either just tell their pilots to knuckle down or arrange a structure to avoid the problem. They will surely choose the option that is easier and cheaper from the owner's perspective.
EAl,
I am pretty sure the language is Member State (not EU, ECC, or anything else). I also believe it is a Member of EASA they are referencing. I note Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland appear to be EASA members but not part of the EU.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is apparent that that EASA proposal was drafted by a bunch of people sitting in an underground bunker whose legal expertise came from the nearest (EU taxpayer subsidised) bar, and from the taxi driver who charges them 50 euros for a 5 minute journey (for which the driver produces a receipt without having to even ask, and which they instantly reclaim on their expenses).
Different local-court interpretations around the EU of "resident" and "operator" will make this a total farce.
I cannot understand how this could have run as far as it has. But then we had the same debate in 2005 around the DfT proposal to boot out N-regs after 90 days' parking. It took me 5 mins to work out a really good work-around (which I won't post here) and there are countless people out there who are far smarter than I am
Different local-court interpretations around the EU of "resident" and "operator" will make this a total farce.
I cannot understand how this could have run as far as it has. But then we had the same debate in 2005 around the DfT proposal to boot out N-regs after 90 days' parking. It took me 5 mins to work out a really good work-around (which I won't post here) and there are countless people out there who are far smarter than I am
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Basic Regulation defines "operator"
Which as a definition is about as much good as a chocolate fireguard.
In legal terms I suspect it would be interpreted as the person who has control of the use of the aircraft is put to. If he has to refer to someone else for instructions or permission he would not be the "operator".
The main thing that needs to be addressed here IMHO is not how you get round the regulation but the intent of the regulation. It's probably bu@@er all to do with safety and more to do with protectionism and bilateral trade agreements.
(h) ‘operator’ shall mean any legal or natural person, operating
or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;
or proposing to operate one or more aircraft;
In legal terms I suspect it would be interpreted as the person who has control of the use of the aircraft is put to. If he has to refer to someone else for instructions or permission he would not be the "operator".
The main thing that needs to be addressed here IMHO is not how you get round the regulation but the intent of the regulation. It's probably bu@@er all to do with safety and more to do with protectionism and bilateral trade agreements.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see how anyone could possibly ramp check someone flying an N reg on a US certificate and prove they are flying illegally (or indeed any other reg using their certificate).
All these regulations will do is lead to a bunch of possibly uninsured pilots flying the skies of Europe. Surely that is a step backwards in terms of safety?
I can describe EASA with one word, begining in "W" and ending in "ers"...
PS I could have a UK passport yet be "resident" of somewhere like Brazil, could I not?!
All these regulations will do is lead to a bunch of possibly uninsured pilots flying the skies of Europe. Surely that is a step backwards in terms of safety?
I can describe EASA with one word, begining in "W" and ending in "ers"...
PS I could have a UK passport yet be "resident" of somewhere like Brazil, could I not?!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I wrote before, this won't be enforceable on the ramp, in the "international flight around Europe" context - simply because there is no such thing as
- a certificate of being an "operator" (non AOC context), and
- a certificate of not being EU resident
It would be an insurance claim issue only. Very bad news because of the ambiguity; the insurers could walk away from many claims.
- a certificate of being an "operator" (non AOC context), and
- a certificate of not being EU resident
It would be an insurance claim issue only. Very bad news because of the ambiguity; the insurers could walk away from many claims.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be an insurance claim issue only. Very bad news because of the ambiguity; the insurers could walk away from many claims.
A FAA aircraft with a pilot fully qualified to fly that aircraft is insured.
The fact that he doesnt hold totally irrelevant and dare I say ILLEGAL licences could not have a bearing on an insurance claim.
It would have to depend on the wording in the insurance document
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From APOA-US:
EU poised to vote on pilot certification
Pressure mounts to ‘park’ the issue
By Dan Namowitz
With the European Union Commission nearing a vote on adopting EU-wide pilot certification rules, AOPA is warning that the package—which does not include acceptance of third-country pilot credentials—would erect trade barriers with consequences felt in the U.S. flight training and manufacturing sectors.
The EU Commission is set to vote following a hearing scheduled Oct. 13 through 14 on a package of flight crew licensing rules put forth by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In 2008, EASA undertook certification revisions that would supersede member nations’ procedures for the conversion of U.S. pilot certificates.
If passed into law, the proposal would adversely affect U.S. flight schools that train foreign pilots, as well as pilots coming to the United States for training. Pilots who complete their flight training in the United States would be required to repeat most of the exact same training upon returning to an EU state, and it would render the FAA instrument rating useless in Europe. U.S. aircraft manufactures and flight training schools will suffer from a downturn in business from Europe as it is unlikely anyone would invest getting a U.S. aircraft or license which lasts for one or two years, said Craig Spence, AOPA vice president of operations and international affairs.
Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.
AOPA stated its concerns about the proposal to EASA’s Cologne, Germany-based rulemaking directorate in written comments in February 2009. The association pointed out that the changes would negate the value of flight training in non-EASA countries, including the U.S.
“Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots. Currently, people seeking a pilot’s license can complete their training in the U.S. and return to an EASA country and easily exchange their U.S. certificate for an EASA license. The proposed changes would eliminate that option,” AOPA wrote on Feb. 27, 2009.
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA) is expressing alarm at the impact facing pilots and aircraft manufacturers. “To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the country of register, would require an EASA licence, and if applicable an EASA instrument rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on a non-European licence would be available from national aviation authorities, valid for one year,” it explained to members in a special message. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said that late efforts were being made to persuade the EU to “park” the issue until the impact could be re-examined. He described the EASA proposals as “a smokescreen for political chauvinism.”
“The safety benefit will be zero,” he said.
Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.
Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.
“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.
AOPA, in its February 2009 filing, also reminded EASA that the U.S. system of flight training has long set the training standard worldwide. AOPA stressed that the potential regulatory and trade consequences demonstrate the urgent need for a bilateral agreement on acceptance of pilot certification. Differing philosophies about training aside, both groups share a key goal: that of developing safe pilots. “For this reason, AOPA-US urges both EASA and the U.S. to formalize a bilateral agreement to reconcile the differences between this rule and the current U.S. rules regarding fight training. AOPA-US believes that U.S. and European licenses should be accepted in either direction with a minimum of additional requirements.”
Pressure mounts to ‘park’ the issue
By Dan Namowitz
With the European Union Commission nearing a vote on adopting EU-wide pilot certification rules, AOPA is warning that the package—which does not include acceptance of third-country pilot credentials—would erect trade barriers with consequences felt in the U.S. flight training and manufacturing sectors.
The EU Commission is set to vote following a hearing scheduled Oct. 13 through 14 on a package of flight crew licensing rules put forth by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). In 2008, EASA undertook certification revisions that would supersede member nations’ procedures for the conversion of U.S. pilot certificates.
If passed into law, the proposal would adversely affect U.S. flight schools that train foreign pilots, as well as pilots coming to the United States for training. Pilots who complete their flight training in the United States would be required to repeat most of the exact same training upon returning to an EU state, and it would render the FAA instrument rating useless in Europe. U.S. aircraft manufactures and flight training schools will suffer from a downturn in business from Europe as it is unlikely anyone would invest getting a U.S. aircraft or license which lasts for one or two years, said Craig Spence, AOPA vice president of operations and international affairs.
Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.
AOPA stated its concerns about the proposal to EASA’s Cologne, Germany-based rulemaking directorate in written comments in February 2009. The association pointed out that the changes would negate the value of flight training in non-EASA countries, including the U.S.
“Flight training in the U.S. is done because most EASA countries do not have the extensive infrastructure to provide the flight training to would-be pilots. Currently, people seeking a pilot’s license can complete their training in the U.S. and return to an EASA country and easily exchange their U.S. certificate for an EASA license. The proposed changes would eliminate that option,” AOPA wrote on Feb. 27, 2009.
The International Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (IAOPA) is expressing alarm at the impact facing pilots and aircraft manufacturers. “To fly an aircraft in Europe, no matter what the country of register, would require an EASA licence, and if applicable an EASA instrument rating, if you were domiciled in Europe. A stop-gap validation on a non-European licence would be available from national aviation authorities, valid for one year,” it explained to members in a special message. IAOPA Senior Vice President Martin Robinson said that late efforts were being made to persuade the EU to “park” the issue until the impact could be re-examined. He described the EASA proposals as “a smokescreen for political chauvinism.”
“The safety benefit will be zero,” he said.
Paul Fiduccia, director of government and industry affairs at Cirrus Aircraft, was among aircraft manufacturers voicing concern. “We hope that the U.S. government can communicate with counterparts in Europe to delay action on this until analysis of safety and the economic impact of this proposal are completed,” he said in an interview.
Like other manufacturers, he said, Cirrus sells “a substantial percentage” of its aircraft to customers in Europe.
“A Cirrus is best operated by a pilot capable of flying under instrument flight rules. It adds to safety of the operation and the utility of the airplane.” European instrument rating requirements “go far beyond what’s required for safety of operation, and require so much time and investment by pilots that very many of them prefer to operate their aircraft under U.S. pilot certificates and instrument ratings,” Fiduccia said.
AOPA, in its February 2009 filing, also reminded EASA that the U.S. system of flight training has long set the training standard worldwide. AOPA stressed that the potential regulatory and trade consequences demonstrate the urgent need for a bilateral agreement on acceptance of pilot certification. Differing philosophies about training aside, both groups share a key goal: that of developing safe pilots. “For this reason, AOPA-US urges both EASA and the U.S. to formalize a bilateral agreement to reconcile the differences between this rule and the current U.S. rules regarding fight training. AOPA-US believes that U.S. and European licenses should be accepted in either direction with a minimum of additional requirements.”
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots holding certificates of nonmember countries would be required to take EASA’s Air Law and Human Performance exams, hold a Class 2 medical certificate, demonstrate language proficiency, fulfill the requirements for issuance of a type or class rating relevant to the privileges the pilot holds, have at least 100 hours of pilot-in-command time in the relevant aircraft, and pass private pilot skill tests.
AOPA-US believes that U.S. and European licenses should be accepted in either direction with a minimum of additional requirements.”
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They left out the best bit which is the IR conversion........ no conversion route proposed i.e. 50hrs dual, 7 exams, other crap. Converting a PPL is relatively easy.
Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced. The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Io540
Didn't know you worked nights and slept all day any way time to wake up and stop dreaming
If you have a nightmare next week you will possibly be awake lol
Didn't know you worked nights and slept all day any way time to wake up and stop dreaming
If you have a nightmare next week you will possibly be awake lol
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let's see:
EASA are here to harmonize / create pan-European aviation regulations.
(my bold)
But then defers decisions on training requirements to none other than - the Member States !
The mind boggles......
Taking this reference at face value (a dangerous thing, I know), then it would come down to the CAA (or DGAC or whoever) to cut through all the EASA crap and say, hey, we'll take some training to bring the pilot up to speed with Euro airspace and a couple of other variations from the US and then he/she's good to go. Likely to happen?
However, for the time being at least, they hide behind EASA, see the CAA doc re national licenses, etc referenced here somewhere (sorry, don't have time now to dig up the link again).
Then again, perhaps there is a cunning plan out there somewhere, as Ghengis alludes to. Let's hope he's right....
EASA are here to harmonize / create pan-European aviation regulations.
Applicants for Part–FCL licences and associated ratings or certificates already holding at least an equivalent licence issued in accordance with ICAO Annex 1 by a third country shall meet all the requirements of Part–FCL, except that the requirements of course duration, number of lessons and specific training hours may be reduced. The credit given to the applicant shall be determined by the competent authority of the Member State to which the pilot applies on the basis of a recommendation from an approved training organisation.
But then defers decisions on training requirements to none other than - the Member States !
The mind boggles......
Taking this reference at face value (a dangerous thing, I know), then it would come down to the CAA (or DGAC or whoever) to cut through all the EASA crap and say, hey, we'll take some training to bring the pilot up to speed with Euro airspace and a couple of other variations from the US and then he/she's good to go. Likely to happen?
However, for the time being at least, they hide behind EASA, see the CAA doc re national licenses, etc referenced here somewhere (sorry, don't have time now to dig up the link again).
Then again, perhaps there is a cunning plan out there somewhere, as Ghengis alludes to. Let's hope he's right....