EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time to join the student protests?
1. Write to the Secretary General of the Commission requesting the minutes of the EASA 7/8 December comitology meeting, referring to your rights to access to documents under regulation EU 1049/2001. You can google this to find the appropriate address or mailbox
2. Write to your MEP asking them to prompt scruteny of the regulation voted in comitology and suggesting them to ditch it, for the multitude of reasons already discussed at nauseam in this thread; In particular write to those MEP's we already know support the good cause (e.g. Gesine Meissner, Jim Higgins, Brian Simpson, Jody Foster, ...) - see the video of the EP Transport Committee meeting referenced earlier.
3. Invite your MEP's and their collaborators to an instrument flight (LFST - their home), so that they fully understand the benefits and freedoms that are at stake here and that the EASA bureaucrats are trying to destroy.
4. Expose the committee members of the different member states for what they are.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened?
I know medical deregulation was always one of the very tough nuts. The medical Depts are the most powerful of all.
I was especially miffed that EASA did not appear to do away with the two-ear audiogram for the IR, which prevents anybody with one bad ear doing an IR. The UK CAA appears to currently be offering a way forward on this, however.
I know medical deregulation was always one of the very tough nuts. The medical Depts are the most powerful of all.
I was especially miffed that EASA did not appear to do away with the two-ear audiogram for the IR, which prevents anybody with one bad ear doing an IR. The UK CAA appears to currently be offering a way forward on this, however.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the answer that Jim Higgins got to his parliamentary question
Would you good folks consider this answer to be pertinent ? What agreement has exactly has been reached between the US and the EU pertaining to flight crew licensing ? What simplification is Commissioner Kallas referring to ?
Can the Commission confirm that EASA, in its opinion to the Commission, is suggesting that from 2012 anyone who is domiciled in Europe can only fly if they have a valid European licence? I understand there are more than 10 000 Europeans holding a third-country licence and that in order to continue flying they will need to convert to the EASA Part FCL Licence after implementation (April 2012) of the new system. The financial impact will be huge, particularly for those who hold an instrument qualification. They will have to re-sit a number of exams and do a flying course prior to being confirmed as ready to take the flight test. Is the Commission concerned at such a recommendation? What is the Commission’s view on the recommendation?
Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission: Regulation (EC) No 216/2008adopted by the European Parliament and Council requires pilots residing in the European Union (EU) and involved in the operation of an aircraft into the EU to comply with the European licensing requirements. Those requirements may be satisfied by the acceptance of licences issued by third countries in case of operating non‑EU‑registered aircraft.
After extensive consultation with all stakeholders the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has made a proposal (opinion) to the European Commission on pilot licences issued by third country authorities, which reproduces largely the standards commonly applied in Member States and developed previously by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This opinion also contains a proposal for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries, including a proposal for the conversion of third country licences issued in compliance with ICAO Annex A. This proposal will be further discussed in the framework of the EASA Committee meeting in December 2010.
Beyond the current proposal for third country licence conversions, the recognition of non-EU licences could be simplified in case bilateral safety agreements between the EU and third countries are put in place. Such agreements have already been reached with the United States, Canada and Brazil.
After extensive consultation with all stakeholders the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has made a proposal (opinion) to the European Commission on pilot licences issued by third country authorities, which reproduces largely the standards commonly applied in Member States and developed previously by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). This opinion also contains a proposal for the acceptance of licences issued by or on behalf of third countries, including a proposal for the conversion of third country licences issued in compliance with ICAO Annex A. This proposal will be further discussed in the framework of the EASA Committee meeting in December 2010.
Beyond the current proposal for third country licence conversions, the recognition of non-EU licences could be simplified in case bilateral safety agreements between the EU and third countries are put in place. Such agreements have already been reached with the United States, Canada and Brazil.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just disingenuous bollox - a verbose diversion tactic, designed to throw off anyboy who is not closely following the issue.
There are NO bilateral agreements (of relevance) between the USA and the EU.
There are NO bilateral agreements (of relevance) between the USA and the EU.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are NO bilateral agreements (of relevance) between the USA and the EU.
My impression is that the EP doesn't particularly like being lied to by the Commission.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anything is better than nothing and a delay to 2014 at least allows more time to stage a better attack!
Even if everything went through as proposed EASA could give existing FAA Licence holders an option to fly on exemptions renewed on an annual basis.
They could stipulate some conditions for issue of excemptions which would give EASA some control and those could be renewed annually for years if need be.
In fact I have never understood why excemptions are not used more and more freely available. Used in bilateral agreements they give licence acceptance with control.
Pace
Even if everything went through as proposed EASA could give existing FAA Licence holders an option to fly on exemptions renewed on an annual basis.
They could stipulate some conditions for issue of excemptions which would give EASA some control and those could be renewed annually for years if need be.
In fact I have never understood why excemptions are not used more and more freely available. Used in bilateral agreements they give licence acceptance with control.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pprune thread has links to the existing BASA, so all can be revealed 
Sure, but most of them don't have a sufficiently in-depth knowledge to see it.
Take that EU TC / EASA committee hearing video. The two Brits were reasonably on the case; the rest were mostly a load of shoe-licking time wasters. I don't know why anybody bothers to speak when their main point is to congratulate EASA on the excellent safety record of European commercial aviation (especially as there is no statistical linkage between that and anything that EASA has done).
The problem with a BASA, as I have already written, is that it is a very soft hook on which they are trying to hang a heavy coat. These bilateral agreements tend to be pretty vague. Take the FAA-CAA certification treaty (c. 1992); it is so vague as to be almost useless, and has not resulted in any widespread US STC acceptance that I am aware of. You could easily knock up a bilateral FCL treaty under which the EU accepts FAA licenses provided that the pilot wears three pairs of pink underpants, etc. More to the point, I can't see the USA agreeing to certain things which they currently address with 61.75 and other similar devices, handed out freely - in their current security climate. I am sure the "BASA" is a diversion tactic, designed to fool those who don't understand the issues.
the EP doesn't particularly like being lied to by the Commission.
Take that EU TC / EASA committee hearing video. The two Brits were reasonably on the case; the rest were mostly a load of shoe-licking time wasters. I don't know why anybody bothers to speak when their main point is to congratulate EASA on the excellent safety record of European commercial aviation (especially as there is no statistical linkage between that and anything that EASA has done).
The problem with a BASA, as I have already written, is that it is a very soft hook on which they are trying to hang a heavy coat. These bilateral agreements tend to be pretty vague. Take the FAA-CAA certification treaty (c. 1992); it is so vague as to be almost useless, and has not resulted in any widespread US STC acceptance that I am aware of. You could easily knock up a bilateral FCL treaty under which the EU accepts FAA licenses provided that the pilot wears three pairs of pink underpants, etc. More to the point, I can't see the USA agreeing to certain things which they currently address with 61.75 and other similar devices, handed out freely - in their current security climate. I am sure the "BASA" is a diversion tactic, designed to fool those who don't understand the issues.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current proposal is for any exemption accepting foreign licences to be one-time only and for a maximum duration of 1 year. It is proposed that this could be extended if the applicant is undergoing a training course at the end of the year but only for long enough for him to complete the training.
proudprivate
As any fule kno politicians never lie. They may be guilty of "terminological inexactitude" but it can never be said that they lie (at least not within the precincts of our own Parliament)
Edited to correct appealing spooling. I appear to be suffering from Eric Morecombe syndrome. Typing all of the right letters but not necessarily in the right order.
There again I'm in good company. I live in St Ursula Grove but Microsoft does not recognise "Ursula" as a word and suggests "Arousal" as an alternative - doesn't work I'm afraid.
proudprivate
As any fule kno politicians never lie. They may be guilty of "terminological inexactitude" but it can never be said that they lie (at least not within the precincts of our own Parliament)
Edited to correct appealing spooling. I appear to be suffering from Eric Morecombe syndrome. Typing all of the right letters but not necessarily in the right order.
There again I'm in good company. I live in St Ursula Grove but Microsoft does not recognise "Ursula" as a word and suggests "Arousal" as an alternative - doesn't work I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1 year validation has been in JAA for years, IIRC.
It is basically meaningless, because it has little practical use.
Some JAA members have been usefully flouting it, issuing local validations for indefinite periods. All you needed was a relationship (a job, basically) with a local-registry commercial operator, and then you were "in" for ever. Very useful. I know of one such, but the need to arrange for the "relationship" makes it impractical.
I guess EASA will stop these exceptions, but there again they might not, and it will take just one country to do it, and the resulting papers will be unambiguously useful all through EASA-land.
It is basically meaningless, because it has little practical use.
Some JAA members have been usefully flouting it, issuing local validations for indefinite periods. All you needed was a relationship (a job, basically) with a local-registry commercial operator, and then you were "in" for ever. Very useful. I know of one such, but the need to arrange for the "relationship" makes it impractical.
I guess EASA will stop these exceptions, but there again they might not, and it will take just one country to do it, and the resulting papers will be unambiguously useful all through EASA-land.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really understand the N register / EASA argument, I wondered though
why UK pilots / owners don't have European registered aircraft kept in the UK
I have rarely seen F or D registered machines here, there must be a reason ?
otherwise non CAA machines would swamp the UK ?
why UK pilots / owners don't have European registered aircraft kept in the UK
I have rarely seen F or D registered machines here, there must be a reason ?
otherwise non CAA machines would swamp the UK ?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the N register / EASA argument
I don't really understand the N register / EASA argument
I have rarely seen F or D registered machines here, there must be a reason ?
Eric Morecombe syndrome
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current proposal is for any exemption accepting foreign licences to be one-time only and for a maximum duration of 1 year. It is proposed that this could be extended if the applicant is undergoing a training course at the end of the year but only for long enough for him to complete the training.
There was an FAA Lear Pilot who flew for 5 years on excemptions on a G reg Lear 45. The CAA grumbled when it became obvious he wasnt converting to JAA and stopped him after 5 years.
There are ATPs who maybe mid 50s or even older where such legislation would remove them out of the system altogether.
Unlike a 30 year old who could draw back the 20K plus in expenditure over decades the older pilot could not and would effectively loose their employment.
Age discrimination could actually come into play without some built in safeguard ie ongoing excemptions.
That is one small example.
It would be easy to change the 1 year rule to ongoing for all existing FAA pilots from PPL IR up to ATP.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really understand the N register / EASA argument, I wondered though
why UK pilots / owners don't have European registered aircraft kept in the UK
I have rarely seen F or D registered machines here, there must be a reason ?
otherwise non CAA machines would swamp the UK ?
why UK pilots / owners don't have European registered aircraft kept in the UK
I have rarely seen F or D registered machines here, there must be a reason ?
otherwise non CAA machines would swamp the UK ?
- the maintenance regime, and
- the pilot licensing required to fly it
The FAA system looks after the bulk of the world's GA and therefore there are loads of FAA qualified engineers all over the world, including Europe/UK. You need an FAA A&P/IA to sign off the Annual, for example.
You could keep a Mongolian registered plane in the UK but you would find it hard to get the maintenance signed off, and similarly for getting a Mongolian medical
There is negligible benefit in deliberately keeping a D or F reg in the UK (some odd exceptions for Robins, I believe) but equally there is little point in transferring a D or F plane to G, because they can all be maintained under the EASA regime.
The other thing is that you cannot (in general) do Aerial Work in non G regs, and this puts a damper on flying school use, etc.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the explainations, So I guess I could say, purchase a French
registered helicopter ( amazing little Kompress with a Rotax engine )
which are not allowed on the UK register, keep it on an F and fly it back to France for its annual / servicing ? on an EASA permit.
I'm only using the Kompress as an example, there's many others, not available
here in the UK
registered helicopter ( amazing little Kompress with a Rotax engine )
which are not allowed on the UK register, keep it on an F and fly it back to France for its annual / servicing ? on an EASA permit.
I'm only using the Kompress as an example, there's many others, not available
here in the UK
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the next stage is some more haggling behind closed doors, followed by drafting the legal text (behind closed doors), and then it comes up for a vote in the Parliament, which is in the open.
It's vital that EASA get a bl00dy nose on the last one. They deserve it, after Goudou's and Seebohm's astonishingly misleading TV performances in October.
But lobbying continues and will remain effective the whole time. The pressure must be maintained.
It's vital that EASA get a bl00dy nose on the last one. They deserve it, after Goudou's and Seebohm's astonishingly misleading TV performances in October.
But lobbying continues and will remain effective the whole time. The pressure must be maintained.