EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft

[dublinpilot]

Wasn't there supposed to be a December meeting of the climatology and transport committee?

[IO540]

Yes there was

[Pace]

licence in order to fly a 3rd country aircraft is to be deferred by 2 years from April 2012 to April 2014. The intention is that this 2 year period will allow for a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement to be signed with the USA.

10540

This on face value is the relevant point

The intention is that this 2 year period will allow for a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement to be signed with the USA

The whole point is a Bilateral agreement as that is why an extension has been added. If still not ready then as that is the purpose an other extension has to be made until that goal is reached?

Pace

[IO540]

I think it is fairly obvious that if no fully applicable FCL BASA (i.e. one which allows the EU to recognise FAA papers in full) is signed before 2014/2015, the issue will just come back in 2014/2015.

And it will be bigger because while EASA have almost managed to sneak this one through under the noses of the bizjet crowd, they won't be able to do in in the future because the whole outfit has been totally discredited (Goudou's TV show, etc) and everybody will be watching them.

Unless some other thing happens, of course...... what could that be?

Some sort of political compromise e.g.

1) a much more doable Euro IR, and
2) some easy conversion from FAA to EASA IR

It's all easily doable technically, but emotionally extremely difficult for the Eurocrats

I was at a presentation a few years ago by a JAA Director who explained that they had worked out a complete method for accepting FAA licenses and certification, into JAA. It got completed and then got shelved for purely political reasons.

This is why I can't see EASA acting honestly when they talk about a BASA as the solution. It's like a load of turkeys saying xmas will be allright if it is moved from December to July.

[soaringhigh650]

It got completed and then got shelved for purely political reasons.

Shelved by MEPs or EASA directors?

[Katamarino]

I was at a presentation a few years ago by a JAA Director who explained that they had worked out a complete method for accepting FAA licenses and certification, into JAA.

I hope they were not trying to suggest that this was any kind of significant achievement. I suspect that it's not actually that difficult to write down the phrase "FAA Licenses are now valid in all JAA Aicraft", even if you do have to word it in an idiotic fashion to please the lawyer-leaches.

[Pace]

1) a much more doable Euro IR, and
2) some easy conversion from FAA to EASA IR

It's all easily doable technically, but emotionally extremely difficult for the Eurocrats

10540

It is extremely difficult because they cannot do anything which dilutes their own licences or sidesteps the route to achieving those licences.

The route of training between FAA and JAA is so far apart its not a matter of a slight tweaking to bring them together.

Hence why way back in this thread I could only see a Euro PPL IR as a part route to a full IR rather than an entity on its own.

ie having achieved stage one of the full IR you get issued a limited and restricted part IR and then upgrade that with further training to the full IR but all part of the full IR training schedule.

But that wont help higher licences like my ATP and Jet ratings as a part PPL IR would not be valid in RVSM airspace or upper airspace.
The only route I could see for existing Commercial pilots would be through ongoing excemptions.
Again EASA could build in their own controls for the issuance on an annual basis of excemptions and hence have some control over us cowboy N reg jet jockeys.

Pace

[IO540]

It was shelved within JAA management, whatever that means.

To be fair, I would not expect a concession like making FAA licenses 100% valid on JAA aircraft, because that would wipe out most of the pilot training business in Europe - both private and the more lucrative professional training. The latter would be especially vulnerable to US competition because most of the punters are unemployed young men who would easily be able to go to the USA for a number of months; something most private pilots (in their 40s and 50s) can't do due to "life" issues.

What I do expect is non-interference in operations of foreign reg aircraft. These are in any case banned from doing money making operations.

[Mike Cross]

Of course if the incentive to fly under a foreign flag were removed the problem would probably go away. AIUI the whole EASA business was designed to make it easier for Airbus to sell in Europe and for European operators and workers to transfer within Europe. The logical extension of the process is you dismantle the differences to open up the US market as well. With the differences removed there is no advantage to operating FRA so people will stop doing it. Or am I being too simplistic?

[IO540]

AIUI, EASA was set up as a certification body for Airbus airframes - airframe bits were made in several countries and the purpose of EASA was to create a common certification body.

Then EASA got hijacked by some Eurocrats for building a EU-wide parts and pilot licensing empire.

With the differences removed there is no advantage to operating FRA so people will stop doing it. Or am I being too simplistic?

You are correct but it won't happen, due to protectionist issues.

[gyrotyro]

Other reg operations in the UK

I find it ironic that although the UK CAA will not allow me to fly a G reg a/c using a French class II medical if I swap my JAA licence for a French one I can then fly a G reg a/c over the same UK rooftops using a French class II medical.

Crazy !

[marliz]

strange the life!

01 July 2008

EU-US safety agreement signed

A bilateral agreement strengthening cooperation on aviation safety was signed on 30 June between the European Community and the United States. The agreement enables the reciprocal acceptance of certificates issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the US.
"This agreement is an important step forward in the Agency's international relations. It acknowledges its role as a reliable partner for its counterparts world-wide and will serve to reinforce the very good relationship we already have with the FAA", said Patrick Goudou, the Agency’s Executive Director.
The purposes of the agreement are to: allow the reciprocal acceptance of approvals and findings of compliance issued by the two aviation authorities; ensure the continuation of high-level regulatory cooperation; and promote a high degree of safety in air transport. Its scope covers the airworthiness approvals and monitoring of civil aeronautical products; environmental testing and approvals; and the approvals and monitoring of maintenance facilities.
Thanks to the reciprocal acceptance of certificates, the agreement will result in better harmonised safety systems on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as less cumbersome technical and administrative procedures for the recognition of certificates. This will reduce costs and pave the way for a level-playing field for European and US manufacturers.
The agreement was signed in Brussels by Mirko Komac, Director General of the Slovenian Civil Aviation Authority representing the EU Presidency, Antonio Tajani, European Commission Vice-President in charge of Transport and Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator of the FAA. Its entry into force is subject to ratification by both sides.

just a little little step left to close for ever the license question!!

[IO540]

I think "certificates" refers to component certification, not pilot licensing.

In the USA, pilot licenses are called "certificates" which adds to the confusion in this case.

AFAIK there is no FAA-EASA treaty on pilot licensing, and there can't be because EASA has not yet officially taken over that area.

[noblue]

Reliable reports from the December Comitology meeting are sparse. We have heard indirectly from the 2 UK attendees. Does anyone have any non-UK reports from some of the many other national delegates?

[robin]

The report of the 2-day event by the UK reps is very sketchy and its the stuff that isn't mentioned that worries me.

Politicians have a habit of burying bad news when there is a lot of 'noise' and the N-reg issue has been ideal for slipping a host of nasties through.

[AN2 Driver]

My take is that the whole shebang has passed more or less as threatened but postponed for 2 years and the representatives of GA are trying to keep a stiff upper lip by claiming it will all be well and the managed to get us 2 more years to fly.

Sometimes it appears to me that nobody thinks further than tomorrow anymore as whatever EASA decides may ground us faster than we think. They have time that we don't.

[IO540]

I don't believe there is an agenda to kill GA, or kill IFR GA, but I do think some embarrassing political deal was done, which is why nobody is saying anything, as everybody present bought into it.

I wonder what it might be.

[robin]

I've just seen a quote on the other site which is interesting.

The French proposal to build in the Brevet de Base into the LAPL was roundly rejected. However, the French, in typically Gallic manner, are telling EASA to get lost.

They claim (AOPA did too) that EASA has no right to take away existing privileges, so if the CAA were to take that line, we could keep IMCR and the UK-PPL. But I'm not holding my breath.

[IO540]

Some details including links to very vague minutes were posted here. Nothing terribly suprising there; you don't expect to find details of what the DfT note called "difficult discussion" in the minutes

[Mike Cross]

Reliable reports from the December Comitology meeting are sparse. We have heard indirectly from the 2 UK attendees.

Not sure we have. My understanding is that these were attendees at a DfT briefing after the event, not the meeting itself.EASA FCL Update mid Dec 2010