EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its European CE EN-166-F englishal, well it is in our ops manual.
Its partly the company's fault if he is flying illegally because they haven't picked it up themselves.
The pilot would be in trouble but also if discovered your company would have a pretty harsh flight ops inspection coming at them quite quickly.
I would think it would be covered because most aircraft are leased and the leasor would ensure that the hull is covered what ever the state of the flight crews paperwork.
Its partly the company's fault if he is flying illegally because they haven't picked it up themselves.
The pilot would be in trouble but also if discovered your company would have a pretty harsh flight ops inspection coming at them quite quickly.
I would think it would be covered because most aircraft are leased and the leasor would ensure that the hull is covered what ever the state of the flight crews paperwork.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance must cover what is basically undetectable fraud. I vaguely recall looking into this when I was renting out the plane; what would happen if a pilot with bogus papers (which is much less uncommon than most would think, in GA, at least to some degree e.g. an expired IR but filing an IFR FP to France) rented the plane and pranged it. The broker said that would be covered, in much the same way as theft followed by a prang.
Anyway, I think some airlines self insure hulls. It does not make sense to pay for insurance where the worse-case loss is well defined and where you have a large fleet. Same with company cars; it is totally dumb to insure fully-comp on a 300 car fleet.
The bit you do want to insure is 3rd party / passenger risk, but you stick an excess on it of sy £10M, to keep the premium cheap.
Anyway, I think some airlines self insure hulls. It does not make sense to pay for insurance where the worse-case loss is well defined and where you have a large fleet. Same with company cars; it is totally dumb to insure fully-comp on a 300 car fleet.
The bit you do want to insure is 3rd party / passenger risk, but you stick an excess on it of sy £10M, to keep the premium cheap.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re : io540 post #505
Coming back to your quote on French actors' motives (in post #505)
I noticed that Daher-Socata has now joined the sponsors of the N-flyers' November Pool, which seems to prove you right : they must rely on N-registrations to sell into the turboprop segment in Europe. Therefore a well meant "merci beaucoup, les amis !".
It is interesting to note that when you ask people of different nationalities about which member states are supposedly behind this, they always refer to the others. In that sense, there seems to be a parallel between the EASA proposal and the naming of veneric diseases or contraceptives.
But more seriously, it shows the lack of democratic transparency in aviation regulation. If we are taking away anything positive from this, it should be that rulemaking needs a broader stakeholder support base and a much better elaborated justification.
We certainly don't need rules for the sake of regulation, or for the sake of being European. We also need to consider deregulation whenever the factual situation doesn't support the existing legislation.
2) France has its govt closely tied to national industrial interests i.e. Dassault and EADS (Daher/Socata now) and these rely heavily on the N-reg option
It is interesting to note that when you ask people of different nationalities about which member states are supposedly behind this, they always refer to the others. In that sense, there seems to be a parallel between the EASA proposal and the naming of veneric diseases or contraceptives.
But more seriously, it shows the lack of democratic transparency in aviation regulation. If we are taking away anything positive from this, it should be that rulemaking needs a broader stakeholder support base and a much better elaborated justification.
We certainly don't need rules for the sake of regulation, or for the sake of being European. We also need to consider deregulation whenever the factual situation doesn't support the existing legislation.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting to note that when you ask people of different nationalities about which member states are supposedly behind this, they always refer to the others
This is because the Czechs have had 42 years (1947-1989) of practice of brown-nosing, knowing which side their bread is buttered, leaning over with the prevailing winds, and generally doing under the table deals which were the way of life under communism.
Post-communism, they have brown-nosed everybody under the sun. They adopted JAA 100.0000% and done it so tightly that when I enquired a few years ago about putting my plane on the OK-reg I got back a massive sheaf of requirements which made it clear why there were exactly zero TBs on the OK- reg... they interestingly explicitly prohibited the use of the UK IMC Rating in an OK-reg in UK airspace. They are desperately trying to be "good EU Europeans" and without any principles. OK, they are and always have been surrounded by a load of big bullies but they don't need to go quite that far.
And now they have a significant national industry which will benefit from VFR deregulation and they would vote for that every time even if all non-AOC IFR flight was totally banned at the same time.
Whereas the French have a big national serious-IFR industry.
Last edited by IO540; 26th Nov 2010 at 13:57.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest rumour going around on this is that EASA will resubmit only a marginally modified FCL proposal for the Dec comitology meeting.
Appalling and arrogant but exactly what one would expect. These gravy train passengers are going to hang on till the train hits the buffers and goes right off the rails (one lives in hope). The average payroll there is N of 100k euros... and most of the top axe grinders will be on 2x that, with overtime and excess (unused) flat-rate-paid expenses.
Just been thinking about the plight of the many FAA CPL/IR / ATP business jet pilots. Their ICAO TR will carry forward and in any event doing the CPL/IR in a Lear 45 or whatever would cost way too much, so in addition to sitting the 14 exams (in their 50s, mostly) they will have to get into a Duchess or a Seneca (the equivalent of a WW2 Russian combine harvester) and spend enough hours in that piece of old junk to fill their mandatory logbooks and then pass the CPL/IR checkrides.
Anybody proposing this needs their head examined.
I don't know if Goudou has ever flown a plane; Sivel is a renter with a PPL (I heard him say so).
Appalling and arrogant but exactly what one would expect. These gravy train passengers are going to hang on till the train hits the buffers and goes right off the rails (one lives in hope). The average payroll there is N of 100k euros... and most of the top axe grinders will be on 2x that, with overtime and excess (unused) flat-rate-paid expenses.
Just been thinking about the plight of the many FAA CPL/IR / ATP business jet pilots. Their ICAO TR will carry forward and in any event doing the CPL/IR in a Lear 45 or whatever would cost way too much, so in addition to sitting the 14 exams (in their 50s, mostly) they will have to get into a Duchess or a Seneca (the equivalent of a WW2 Russian combine harvester) and spend enough hours in that piece of old junk to fill their mandatory logbooks and then pass the CPL/IR checkrides.
Anybody proposing this needs their head examined.
I don't know if Goudou has ever flown a plane; Sivel is a renter with a PPL (I heard him say so).
IO540
Had to smile at your (WW2 Russian combine harvester) comparison, according to Wikipedia, my Seneca engines were certified some twenty years later !
''The turbocharged TSIO-360 series was first certified on 11 October 1966 to the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 33 standard effective February 1, 1965''
Had to smile at your (WW2 Russian combine harvester) comparison, according to Wikipedia, my Seneca engines were certified some twenty years later !
''The turbocharged TSIO-360 series was first certified on 11 October 1966 to the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 33 standard effective February 1, 1965''
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My IO540-C4 maintenance manual (which I bought from Lyco) is last dated 1978...
However - that old motor, once set to peak EGT or LOP, is more fuel efficient than any modern petrol car engine (according to GAMI).
However - that old motor, once set to peak EGT or LOP, is more fuel efficient than any modern petrol car engine (according to GAMI).
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too few officials and regulators actually fly
Anybody proposing this needs their head examined.
I don't know if Goudou has ever flown a plane;
I don't know if Goudou has ever flown a plane;
More seriously, I think the general distrust or envy towards private flying also makes that technically competent people are less likely to fly in Europe than in the United States.
I think it is high time we start to invite MEP's or their collaborators for some rides, to show them the beauty and utility of private flying; to show them that, per kilometer traveled, an AA5B or a DA40 consumes not more gas than a car, and less than half of what a car would consume if traveling at that speed (has to be in Germany somewhere); to show them that, by inventing new rules and restrictions, they are turning flying into an elitist thing, which it certainly doesn't have to be...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest rumour going around on this is that EASA will resubmit only a marginally modified FCL proposal for the Dec comitology meeting.
Appalling and arrogant but exactly what one would expect.
Appalling and arrogant but exactly what one would expect.
But, as you say, they do have considerable form on this sort of thing.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For obvious political / gravy train maintenance reasons one would expect them to drive this particular train right up and through the buffers, at max speed.
They would be fools to give up a second before the very end.
If you propose something which is kind of unpleasant for some, but which has some political "looks good" payoffs (for example the UK gun ban) then you can do some negotiation which preserves face. But EASA's proposal is so aggressive, unprecedented, pointless, supported by zero safety data, and so universally disliked especially after Goudou's totally in-your-face dishonest performance on TV (well, those that support it are so ashamed of themselves that they stay in the shadows) that there is no possibility of a face saving compromise.
Very poor quality politics, to dig yourself in so deep that you cannot move.
It will be interesting to say the least how this plays out.
They would be fools to give up a second before the very end.
If you propose something which is kind of unpleasant for some, but which has some political "looks good" payoffs (for example the UK gun ban) then you can do some negotiation which preserves face. But EASA's proposal is so aggressive, unprecedented, pointless, supported by zero safety data, and so universally disliked especially after Goudou's totally in-your-face dishonest performance on TV (well, those that support it are so ashamed of themselves that they stay in the shadows) that there is no possibility of a face saving compromise.
Very poor quality politics, to dig yourself in so deep that you cannot move.
It will be interesting to say the least how this plays out.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is though its not universally disliked. There maybe a very vocal dislike to it but the majority in european aviation would be not bothered or be more than happy if they did push it through.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to believe that a European Aviation Safety Agency can push something like this through on safety grounds, when statistics show that N reg pilots resident in Europe are 4 times less likely to be involved in an accident than someone flying an EASA aircraft on an EASA license resident in Europe.
(go and search accident reports if you don't believe me)
(go and search accident reports if you don't believe me)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
Come on, you know better.
Clegg signed a pledge, and then renaged within months.
He had or should have known the state of the finances when he came to power (because the public finances are a matter of open record in the run up to an election); nothing could have changed in that time sufficiently.
Either he didnt review the finance porperly or he had no intention of keeping his pledge when it suited him otherwise.
Neither is satisfactory any more than the N reg situation.
Unfortunately we no longer have politicians blessed with integrity and you should be no more surprised when it comes to our political masters in Europe than our political masters in Westminster.
Has it ever been that much different - well there is another debate for another day.
Come on, you know better.
Clegg signed a pledge, and then renaged within months.
He had or should have known the state of the finances when he came to power (because the public finances are a matter of open record in the run up to an election); nothing could have changed in that time sufficiently.
Either he didnt review the finance porperly or he had no intention of keeping his pledge when it suited him otherwise.
Neither is satisfactory any more than the N reg situation.
Unfortunately we no longer have politicians blessed with integrity and you should be no more surprised when it comes to our political masters in Europe than our political masters in Westminster.
Has it ever been that much different - well there is another debate for another day.
(go and search accident reports if you don't believe me)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's not a very convincing way of backing up a statistical claim. I've heard lots of stats bandied about. Where's the evidence?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And also interpreting the data would be suspect.
If you took like for like i.e FAA/IR and JAR/IR I don't think you would see such a marked difference. If any at all.
Again with the VFR flights if you took a like for like say Alaska v Europe. There wouldnt be that much difference.
If you took like for like i.e FAA/IR and JAR/IR I don't think you would see such a marked difference. If any at all.
Again with the VFR flights if you took a like for like say Alaska v Europe. There wouldnt be that much difference.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jock
But stats are all we have to go on? EASA is supposed to be an AIR SAFETY organisation. Maybe they should be EPPA? Political and Protectionism?
Stats will show up a weakness in safety which can then be plugged and should be.
I get very nervous when departments regulate on percieved threat as like in the ASH saga its Pi##ing in the wind.
Stats can also be used to win an arguement or justify an unjustifiable move and that is where we have to be very cautious.
Pace
But stats are all we have to go on? EASA is supposed to be an AIR SAFETY organisation. Maybe they should be EPPA? Political and Protectionism?
Stats will show up a weakness in safety which can then be plugged and should be.
I get very nervous when departments regulate on percieved threat as like in the ASH saga its Pi##ing in the wind.
Stats can also be used to win an arguement or justify an unjustifiable move and that is where we have to be very cautious.
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know why this talk of N reg safety in Europe because I didnt think even EASA were claiming N reg should be outlawed because of their safety record? Have I missed something?