EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
I think the more relevant bit of the report was:
The AAIB sought an opinion from the CAA as to
whether the pilot’s licence was valid for this flight with
this aircraft. As this N-registered aircraft was being
flown under the privileges of an FAA licence, the CAA
asked the FAA for clarification but the FAA did not
provide a definitive answer.
So it's an aerial work operation in the UK by an operator based in the UK, but flown with an N-reg. And when the CAA, correctly, seeks, not even to enforce regulation but to clarify the regulatory position by the ICAO route, the FAA says "Eh, whatever...".
The AAIB sought an opinion from the CAA as to
whether the pilot’s licence was valid for this flight with
this aircraft. As this N-registered aircraft was being
flown under the privileges of an FAA licence, the CAA
asked the FAA for clarification but the FAA did not
provide a definitive answer.
So it's an aerial work operation in the UK by an operator based in the UK, but flown with an N-reg. And when the CAA, correctly, seeks, not even to enforce regulation but to clarify the regulatory position by the ICAO route, the FAA says "Eh, whatever...".
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the phrase:
"all limitation on the CAA license XXXXX apply" written on the back of the FAA certificate should have clarified the position in black and white?!
If the CAA license deemed a TR required then surely it is obvious a TR was required if you ask me.
"all limitation on the CAA license XXXXX apply" written on the back of the FAA certificate should have clarified the position in black and white?!
If the CAA license deemed a TR required then surely it is obvious a TR was required if you ask me.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is more than possible that the CAA asked the wrong bit of the FAA.
In 2006 or so I was at a presentation by a CAA official. I think this was at a PPL/IR AGM, actually.
The subject was GPS approaches. He reported that the CAA, in checking out the reliability of these, asked the FAA if they ever did any study of the reliability of GPS approaches. (Notwithstanding the fact that by that date, the USA had flown about 1 million GPS approaches
). Apparently the FAA reply was NO i.e. they introduced GPS approaches without doing any kind of reliability or safety study on them.
This was of course total bollox and 5 minutes on google at the time dug out many FAA and other US (military and other) GPS reliability and accuracy studies.
But anyway the CAA then spent years and vast amount of money on consultants, checking the reliability of GPS, and reportedly found GPS to be extremely reliable. Hey what a suprise
So............ who in the FAA did the CAA ask? Some toilet cleaner? We will never know.
The AAIB is less than 100% diligent, too. Some stuff I have read in their reports should have been investigated more deeply (and if it was, why did they not print the result - did some lawyer object to it?).
As everybody here knows, many pilots have asked many bits of the FAA questions like "is the UK IMC Rating valid in an N-reg" and got a variety of replies, or (most often) no replies. I got a reply saying it is fine. Same on the "JAA" license being good all over JAA land; I have seen at least 2 opposite replies (though there are now at least 2 Chief Counsel opinions on this one, both saying it is NOT valid and you need a license ISSUED by the airspace owner).
The FAA, with its multiple FSDOs etc, is a big organisation...
I also think the FAA has a less than robust delegation process for dealing with "foreign" matters. I have been told by an FAA lawyer, not long ago, that matters sent to the Chief Counsel in Washington tend to get passed to the NY IFO, without even being looked at. And all kinds of stuff goes on at the NY IFO. They gave a right run-around to one avionics shop who I got to do a GPS approach approval (337 paperwork job). I don't think there is anybody at the NY IFO with any expertise, which is why they have washed their hands of processing 337 field approvals for example. It looks like the top of the FAA has not yet discovered this situation...
So saying the FAA did not offer a view means precisely nothing.
Historically, the UK CAA has been a lot better and I have got some great replies from them. Today, you can ask the CAA something and get total bollox, and indeed I have seen some fine specimens of that.
Today, there are not many competent people in the CAA and they could have simply not known what Q to ask.
In 2006 or so I was at a presentation by a CAA official. I think this was at a PPL/IR AGM, actually.
The subject was GPS approaches. He reported that the CAA, in checking out the reliability of these, asked the FAA if they ever did any study of the reliability of GPS approaches. (Notwithstanding the fact that by that date, the USA had flown about 1 million GPS approaches
). Apparently the FAA reply was NO i.e. they introduced GPS approaches without doing any kind of reliability or safety study on them.This was of course total bollox and 5 minutes on google at the time dug out many FAA and other US (military and other) GPS reliability and accuracy studies.
But anyway the CAA then spent years and vast amount of money on consultants, checking the reliability of GPS, and reportedly found GPS to be extremely reliable. Hey what a suprise
So............ who in the FAA did the CAA ask? Some toilet cleaner? We will never know.
The AAIB is less than 100% diligent, too. Some stuff I have read in their reports should have been investigated more deeply (and if it was, why did they not print the result - did some lawyer object to it?).
As everybody here knows, many pilots have asked many bits of the FAA questions like "is the UK IMC Rating valid in an N-reg" and got a variety of replies, or (most often) no replies. I got a reply saying it is fine. Same on the "JAA" license being good all over JAA land; I have seen at least 2 opposite replies (though there are now at least 2 Chief Counsel opinions on this one, both saying it is NOT valid and you need a license ISSUED by the airspace owner).
The FAA, with its multiple FSDOs etc, is a big organisation...
I also think the FAA has a less than robust delegation process for dealing with "foreign" matters. I have been told by an FAA lawyer, not long ago, that matters sent to the Chief Counsel in Washington tend to get passed to the NY IFO, without even being looked at. And all kinds of stuff goes on at the NY IFO. They gave a right run-around to one avionics shop who I got to do a GPS approach approval (337 paperwork job). I don't think there is anybody at the NY IFO with any expertise, which is why they have washed their hands of processing 337 field approvals for example. It looks like the top of the FAA has not yet discovered this situation...
So saying the FAA did not offer a view means precisely nothing.
Historically, the UK CAA has been a lot better and I have got some great replies from them. Today, you can ask the CAA something and get total bollox, and indeed I have seen some fine specimens of that.
Today, there are not many competent people in the CAA and they could have simply not known what Q to ask.
"all limitation on the CAA license XXXXX apply" written on the back of the FAA certificate should have clarified the position in black and white?!
I think IO-540's post simply emphasises the difficult of an NAA enforcing anything through the state of registry of the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think IO-540's post simply emphasises the difficult of an NAA enforcing anything through the state of registry of the aircraft.
If say some US airline pilot (flying an N-reg) makes a hash of something when landing at LHR, the UK CAA will have exactly the same issues getting the FAA to bust the pilot for it.
If say some US airline pilot (flying an N-reg) makes a hash of something when landing at LHR, the UK CAA will have exactly the same issues getting the FAA to bust the pilot for it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the DfT would simply ban Continental (etc) flying to LHR if some Conti pilot made some mistake?
They could but I don't think they would. Reciprocal action, etc.
They'd do it to the national airline of Upper Volta, sure.
They could but I don't think they would. Reciprocal action, etc.
They'd do it to the national airline of Upper Volta, sure.
They wouldn't "ban Continental" for a simple pilot mistake, but they would know exactly who to call, and the guy at the other end of the phone would have a strong incentive to listen. That's because Continental needs a permit as a commercial operator. A non-commercial operator needs no such authorisation (by virtue of the Chicago Convention rights that you keep banging on about), and the means to redress any issues with the operation is much less clear. There is already direct regulatory oversight for a foreign commercial operator, but not for a foreign non-commercial operator.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring all succh aircraft onto the UK register (or export them if they are not fit to be here). It will be safer for all!
I have to tell you, the FAA wants to see POSITIVE control on a plane, I became a better pilot because of the FAA training. Same on the IR. While it's true that you have to study more nonsense on the JAR-FCL IR than the FAA-IR, I'm absolutely sure that FAA trained pilots are BETTER pilots than JAR-FCL ones.
The practical part, meaning to fly the plane is just much harder and intense on the FAA part, any pilot who did the FAA training will agree that it's no joke like many JAR-FCL pilots think it is.
Again, I know, I've done both. It will be safer if you train all UK pilots to FAA standards - that is my opinion.
Dear Pilot/Aviation enthusiast,
As you may know, our EASA is attacking our ability to exercise FAA licenses and ratings in European airspace; and they are presently winning:
You may still help (decisions are being made tomorrow, the 8th December):
1). Send an e-mail from your own address on the model below TODAY to the attached e-mail addresses, with BCC to [email protected]
2). Forward this message to each FAA and EASA-licensed pilot, mechanic and medical examiner you know, asking them write themselves.
To:
[email protected][email protected][email protected]
BCC: [email protected]
Title : EASA FCL flight personnel licensing regulation
Text body :
attention Mr. President Barroso, Mrs Vice-President Ashton and Director Ruete,
As an EU citizen, resident, professional and taxpayer, I am deeply concerned about the imminent rule-making that would forbid, in contradiction with ICAO standards, pilots such as myself from flying in European airspace.
Its The EASA proposed license-conversion requirements are complex, costly, and disproportionate; they will cost job losses in the hundreds across Europe in aircraft manufacturing, flight training and maintenance; flight safety would be demonstrably affected.
In a time of crisis, creating further predicaments is not what we hope from your Commission. Thank you for attention.
Yours truly,
Signature...
As you may know, our EASA is attacking our ability to exercise FAA licenses and ratings in European airspace; and they are presently winning:
- EASA has steadfastly defeated all attempts to establish dialogue with the decision-makers in the flight crew licensing process,
- Instead of a formal EU commission meeting with a published agenda, participants list, documents and minutes, it appears that EASA will decide your future as a pilot in a closed-door comitology meeting,
- None of the amendments on content seem likely to be accepted, at best an implementation deferred by a couple of years.
This is unacceptable. The stance has been and remains that:
- The European safety record for N-registered aircraft is demonstrably better than the same of F-, D- or G-registered aircraft.
- EASA keeps suggesting that the nebulous private IFR project (FCL008) will solve everything and provide easy conversions: this is simply not true. The current proposals are years away and still call for 7 written exams with an average of 7000 questions with 4 possible answers each; overly complex initial and recurrent checks; and high costs of re-training.
- EASA keeps answering that some bilateral agreements with the United States will solve our problem quickly, but we know from reliable sources that these agreements in the current will not improve our lot in any way.
- The minute EASA does produce a set of rules better suited for non-commercial instrument flying, FAA-licensed pilots will logically migrate en masse. The current situation was created by European civil aviation authorities - they are the ones who need to fix it, instead of constraining everyone to adopt disproportionate rules. Enact better solutions first, then let market forces adopt what is most rational.
- Adopting part FCL as it is will cause around half of the European instrument-rated pilots to abandon aviation due near-commercial complexities and inability to use N-registered aircraft. The consequence will be loss of jobs in training, maintenance and manufacturing industry, loss of en-route fees and fuel taxes. One cannot kill a functional system for a hypothetical, unproven replacement.
You may still help (decisions are being made tomorrow, the 8th December):
1). Send an e-mail from your own address on the model below TODAY to the attached e-mail addresses, with BCC to [email protected]
2). Forward this message to each FAA and EASA-licensed pilot, mechanic and medical examiner you know, asking them write themselves.
To:
[email protected][email protected][email protected]
BCC: [email protected]
Title : EASA FCL flight personnel licensing regulation
Text body :
attention Mr. President Barroso, Mrs Vice-President Ashton and Director Ruete,
As an EU citizen, resident, professional and taxpayer, I am deeply concerned about the imminent rule-making that would forbid, in contradiction with ICAO standards, pilots such as myself from flying in European airspace.
Its The EASA proposed license-conversion requirements are complex, costly, and disproportionate; they will cost job losses in the hundreds across Europe in aircraft manufacturing, flight training and maintenance; flight safety would be demonstrably affected.
In a time of crisis, creating further predicaments is not what we hope from your Commission. Thank you for attention.
Yours truly,
Signature...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Londonderry
Age: 57
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that it is all happening behind closed doors.
Really, it makes me despair. It even makes Westminster look like a model of transparency and accountability. It is the inability to remove the decision takers that are poised to wreck European GA that is so maddening and anti-democratic. But then I guess democracy was not high on the list of priorities when this legislative process was being designed.
Really, it makes me despair. It even makes Westminster look like a model of transparency and accountability. It is the inability to remove the decision takers that are poised to wreck European GA that is so maddening and anti-democratic. But then I guess democracy was not high on the list of priorities when this legislative process was being designed.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: somewhere
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam,
Be careful. Your post risks upsetting Rob Lloyd (PPruNe Towers) as he has his own vested interests.
You risk being banned and you'll get a very very rude notice from him!
Be careful. Your post risks upsetting Rob Lloyd (PPruNe Towers) as he has his own vested interests.
You risk being banned and you'll get a very very rude notice from him!
Ah, okay. Thought it was just advertising they were against.
Still - not doing anything wrong with encouraging people to try and stop this thing going through. If he gets in touch, perhaps he'll explain the problem.
Thanks for the heads-up, hadn't even occurred to me that there might be a problem (just wasn't sure about publicising the emails addresses - but then figured that they're civil servants, so their email addresses must already be in the public domain).
Anyway, if you haven't already - drop them an email and contact all your friends!
Safe flights, whatever licence you use, Sam.
Still - not doing anything wrong with encouraging people to try and stop this thing going through. If he gets in touch, perhaps he'll explain the problem.
Thanks for the heads-up, hadn't even occurred to me that there might be a problem (just wasn't sure about publicising the emails addresses - but then figured that they're civil servants, so their email addresses must already be in the public domain).
Anyway, if you haven't already - drop them an email and contact all your friends!
Safe flights, whatever licence you use, Sam.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IAOPA (Europe), the European Business Aviation Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association have written a joint letter to EASA expressing concerns about EASA's opinion regarding FCL and third country licenses. For more details and to read the letter click here.
So why the CAA asked the exact same question to the FAA a second time when they themselves already refer to the FAA initial ruling in the second AAIB report.
In pointing out the issue, I mean no disrespect to the FAA, only that the oversight of foreign registered aircraft and their crew has the potential to be more difficult, and that the foreign authority has little incentive to be proactive, or even particularly responsive.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Londonderry
Age: 57
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports are emerging that the Comitology Committee has put off a decision on FRA until the spring. Hard to work out what this means, but I would guess that EASA met with some opposition, but I don't know how common it is for legislative proposals to be rebuffed as part of this process.