EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some stuff is here.
Nobody I know of knows any more than is kicking around these various docs.
Even fewer people know how it may be implemented. How is the standard airport policeman going to establish the EU or non-EU residence of the operator?
In essence, I think, AOC ops are exempted. Not because the incredibly vague Basic Regulation says so (IIRC) but because you are getting a de facto permission to operate the specified aircraft with the specified crew having the specified papers, etc. Also most (thought I bet not all) airlines whose pilots do not have EASA papers do happen to be non EU based.
The worst gotcha with all this is not private pilots (of which I am one and I well and truly hated wasting so much time having to collect the JAA papers recently, just in case) but paid private jet pilots flying N- and other FAA-based aircraft (Cayman, Bermuda, Aruba, IOM, etc) on an FAA CPL/IR which has been validated by the State of Registry for the particular airframe. I had to do "only" 7 exams of almost total bollox and 15hrs+ of conversion time, plus the CAA flight test, but these CPL/IRs will need to do all 14 ATPL exams (which are equally mostly bollox) and the CPL and IR conversion routes, and the two flight tests. Plus EASA Class 1 medicals.
Or so it appears. Obviously nobody in EASA is going to advertise any plans to offer later concessions. But something may emerge later, perhaps in 2014.
Personally, as an insurance policy and especially if you make a living flying a bizjet, I would not leave this too late. My writeup above may be excessively long
but you will get the idea that bagging the present exams is probably a smart move because of the straightforward question-bank-banging option, and you then have 36 months to sort out the flying, using whatever options come up, UK, Spain, Greece, whatever...
Nobody I know of knows any more than is kicking around these various docs.
Even fewer people know how it may be implemented. How is the standard airport policeman going to establish the EU or non-EU residence of the operator?
In essence, I think, AOC ops are exempted. Not because the incredibly vague Basic Regulation says so (IIRC) but because you are getting a de facto permission to operate the specified aircraft with the specified crew having the specified papers, etc. Also most (thought I bet not all) airlines whose pilots do not have EASA papers do happen to be non EU based.
The worst gotcha with all this is not private pilots (of which I am one and I well and truly hated wasting so much time having to collect the JAA papers recently, just in case) but paid private jet pilots flying N- and other FAA-based aircraft (Cayman, Bermuda, Aruba, IOM, etc) on an FAA CPL/IR which has been validated by the State of Registry for the particular airframe. I had to do "only" 7 exams of almost total bollox and 15hrs+ of conversion time, plus the CAA flight test, but these CPL/IRs will need to do all 14 ATPL exams (which are equally mostly bollox) and the CPL and IR conversion routes, and the two flight tests. Plus EASA Class 1 medicals.
Or so it appears. Obviously nobody in EASA is going to advertise any plans to offer later concessions. But something may emerge later, perhaps in 2014.
Personally, as an insurance policy and especially if you make a living flying a bizjet, I would not leave this too late. My writeup above may be excessively long
but you will get the idea that bagging the present exams is probably a smart move because of the straightforward question-bank-banging option, and you then have 36 months to sort out the flying, using whatever options come up, UK, Spain, Greece, whatever...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
The information I have is that EASA has legal problems re foreign licensed working pilots resident in Europe ! Hence the silence and lack of detail!
Pace
The information I have is that EASA has legal problems re foreign licensed working pilots resident in Europe ! Hence the silence and lack of detail!
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great thanks for the link Peter, ill take a good read through it. I am an FAA CPL/IR flying for private owners without an AOC, so as you say I'd have a lot of work and expense to convert to EASA papers. I cannot see how on earth it can be this late in the day and there is almost no official line on what we will need to do!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The information I have is that EASA has legal problems re foreign licensed working pilots resident in Europe !
I cannot see how on earth it can be this late in the day and there is almost no official line on what we will need to do!
Previous attempts to boot out foreign reg aircraft (France 2004 and UK 2005) came to a sticky end, and it is thought that well connected bizjet owners had a big part in that. This did lead to what could have been a false sense of security in later years, but like all the EU regulation-makers EASA is carefully set up to carry on while sticking a finger up to commercial considerations (hence the EU bollox like ROHS, REACH, WEEE, etc) so they have managed to take this further than anybody beforehand.
They still had to get it through the Euro MP vote a few months ago, which looked like they weren't going to get it, so they did a load of furious and secret deals under the table (the EU way, too; the place is thoroughly corrupt andif you met any of the EASA heads you will not be suprised) and this resulted in the delay from April 2012 to April 2014.
Each country can choose to take up (or not) this derogation. So far, the known ones are UK, Netherlands, and (ambiguously) Ireland and Switzerland. The last one is non EU anyway so they can do what they like but they have a record of sucking up to JAA (and almost everything else, so long as the deposits in their banks are not questioned
). But it looks like most of the EU will go for the 2014 derogation.I would put money on a last minute deal whereby the 14 exams are skipped, and you do just Air Law for your country (which is fairly standard on the ICAO validation/conversion scene) and on the training being shrunk to just a flight test. The latter has a precedent in the proposed CBM IR which has zero mandatory dual time in the IR conversion.
But nobody will pass the CAA IR test (with NDB holds etc) for example with no dedicated training, especially the modern pilots who fly on modern kit i.e. GPS etc. That is why I think getting on with it now is not a lot harder than whatever might come later.
I don't see FAA CPL/IRs being just given an EASA CPL/IR, as a paper exercise. I hope I am wrong of course, but this would fly in the face of everything which Europe and the way Europe does everything stands for. Any EASA IR will have an annual flight test, so logically they will have one up front. And to pass that you will need ... how much training? Fly a few NDB holds and approaches in your jet, using the ADF, holding the inbound track to 5 degrees
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see FAA CPL/IRs being just given an EASA CPL/IR, as a paper exercise. I hope I am wrong of course, but this would fly in the face of everything which Europe and the way Europe does everything stands for
I do not see that either! More likely European resident pilots flying on N reg who can prove employment will be offered excemptions on an annually renewable basis with probably some conditions and control attached.
That is already available and would seem their best way out without scrapping the whole system.
Of Course EASA are hard at work trying to get a FCL bilateral agreement their preferred option and the reason they gave for moving things to 2014 probably it will move to 2016 (unnofficial) But from a good source.
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this document http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2330/g-FAQ%20FEB12_280212.pdf (point 26 is the relevant one) and also this http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2330/Revis...de_emailer.pdf (page 4 under further information). Both say the new rules are deferred to 2014 for 'private flights'. Im just wondering how they define a private flight? Do they mean a flight carried out by a private pilot? Or a flight carried out for a private person by an FAA CPL holder (me)?
AM
AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NE England
Age: 53
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A private flight is a Part 91 operation, so yes, if a rich guy pays an FAA CPL /ATP to fly his aeroplane, then it is a private flight and not subject to the CAT rules (like duty time etc....)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENGLISHAL
unfortunately our uk caa see this differently i fell fowl of this at ascot racecouse some years ago and had a 13 month investigation
i decieded to go to ascot races with my wife and two friends in my N reg helicopter i thought i would like to have a drink and the weather is changable at ascot time so i asked a uk caa helicopter atpl,examiner,instructor to take us
when we got there we were stopped by a caa official and asked if we had paid for the flights[public transport ] i said its my helicopter and these were my 2 friends ,he asked if we cost shared i said no ,he then asked if i had paid the pilot i said no but i would be doing at the end of the day ,
thats when the fun started he told me it was a illegal flight as there was more than 4 persons on board [cost sharing rules ] and i was paying the pilot . i said if it was illegal i would not pay the pilot i thought that was it but no , this went on for over a year i ewnded up having to go to a solicitor and make out afidavits saying i had not paid him
thats not flight safety thats rules are rules
unfortunately our uk caa see this differently i fell fowl of this at ascot racecouse some years ago and had a 13 month investigation
i decieded to go to ascot races with my wife and two friends in my N reg helicopter i thought i would like to have a drink and the weather is changable at ascot time so i asked a uk caa helicopter atpl,examiner,instructor to take us
when we got there we were stopped by a caa official and asked if we had paid for the flights[public transport ] i said its my helicopter and these were my 2 friends ,he asked if we cost shared i said no ,he then asked if i had paid the pilot i said no but i would be doing at the end of the day ,
thats when the fun started he told me it was a illegal flight as there was more than 4 persons on board [cost sharing rules ] and i was paying the pilot . i said if it was illegal i would not pay the pilot i thought that was it but no , this went on for over a year i ewnded up having to go to a solicitor and make out afidavits saying i had not paid him
thats not flight safety thats rules are rules
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This doesn't quite add up.
Any aircraft owner can pay a pilot to fly him around. The pilot needs a CPL.
It is possible that in your case the CAA hung its coat on the "2 friends". They are absolutely not allowed to pay the pilot anything. Neither is your wife.
Are you able to supply any details of what happened? (by email if you prefer)
I recall a UK magazine doing a FOIA action against the CAA and the DfT some years ago, concerning the N-reg business, and one of the outcomes of this was a number of emails within the DfT in which they "realised" that parts of the ANO are in breach of ICAO, to do with the right of business jet owners to be flown around as described.
Any aircraft owner can pay a pilot to fly him around. The pilot needs a CPL.
It is possible that in your case the CAA hung its coat on the "2 friends". They are absolutely not allowed to pay the pilot anything. Neither is your wife.
Are you able to supply any details of what happened? (by email if you prefer)
I recall a UK magazine doing a FOIA action against the CAA and the DfT some years ago, concerning the N-reg business, and one of the outcomes of this was a number of emails within the DfT in which they "realised" that parts of the ANO are in breach of ICAO, to do with the right of business jet owners to be flown around as described.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter i was intending to pay the pilot nobody else was paying the pilot nobody else was paying anything[ unless they said i was getting a inducement from my wife LOL]
ANO Article 259
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and Part 34, aerial work means any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight is deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 and Part 4.
(3) Aerial work consists of instruction or testing in a club environment if it consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order in an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and Part 34, aerial work means any purpose, other than commercial air transport or public transport, for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised for the flight or the purpose of the flight.
(2) If the only such valuable consideration consists of remuneration for the services of the pilot the flight is deemed to be a private flight for the purposes of Part 3 and Part 4.
(3) Aerial work consists of instruction or testing in a club environment if it consists of the giving of instruction in flying or the conducting of flying tests for the purposes of this Order in an aircraft owned by, operated by or operated under arrangements entered into by a flying club of which the person giving the instruction or conducting the test and the person receiving the instruction or undergoing the test are both members.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News ::: Part FCL.008
The CRD is published : http://hub.easa.europa.eu/crt/docs/viewcrdpdf/id_135
In short :
A Part-FCL licence holder who also holds ICAO Annex 1 instrument rating issued by third-country and the required 50 hours of flying experience as PIC in IFR/IMC needs only to pass a skill test and demonstrate the adequate level of theoretical knowledge during the skill test. He/she also needs to demonstrate English language proficiency.
Crediting for third-country licence holders
The Agency introduced a few changes in order to simplify the criteria for Part-FCL licence holders also holding a third-country IR, to obtain their IR converted into a Part-FCL IR.
Firstly, the demonstration of theoretical knowledge was clarified by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an adequate level of knowledge to the examiner during the skill test. The number of subjects was also reduced to three and cover air law, meteorology, and flight planning & performance.
Secondly, several comments proposed to further review the requirement of 100 hours prior instrument flight time as PIC. As this requirement stems from criteria already established for the acceptance of licences and ratings, the Agency came to the conclusion that this could be reduced to 50 hours of minimum experience (instrument flight time) as PIC. The Agency also made provisions for those pilots with less than the 50 hours of minimum experience by allowing them to credit PIC hours towards the EIR and competency-based IR(A) courses. Please see paragraph ‘crediting of prior experience’ in this section and items 13 and 31 for further details.
Finally, several comments requested the deletion of the skill test and English language requirements. The Agency strongly believes that to ensure a minimum standard and consistency both requirements should be kept and therefore decided to keep the skill test and the FCL.055 English language proficiency requirements as proposed by the NPA. The method of assessment shall be established by the competent authority.
Prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments
With GM1 Appendix 6 (6)(c) an additional GM was developed in order to address the issue of prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments. The three scenarios under which prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments as PIC will be credited as instrument flight time are:
Flight time should have been completed:
In short :
A Part-FCL licence holder who also holds ICAO Annex 1 instrument rating issued by third-country and the required 50 hours of flying experience as PIC in IFR/IMC needs only to pass a skill test and demonstrate the adequate level of theoretical knowledge during the skill test. He/she also needs to demonstrate English language proficiency.
Crediting for third-country licence holders
The Agency introduced a few changes in order to simplify the criteria for Part-FCL licence holders also holding a third-country IR, to obtain their IR converted into a Part-FCL IR.
Firstly, the demonstration of theoretical knowledge was clarified by allowing the applicant to demonstrate an adequate level of knowledge to the examiner during the skill test. The number of subjects was also reduced to three and cover air law, meteorology, and flight planning & performance.
Secondly, several comments proposed to further review the requirement of 100 hours prior instrument flight time as PIC. As this requirement stems from criteria already established for the acceptance of licences and ratings, the Agency came to the conclusion that this could be reduced to 50 hours of minimum experience (instrument flight time) as PIC. The Agency also made provisions for those pilots with less than the 50 hours of minimum experience by allowing them to credit PIC hours towards the EIR and competency-based IR(A) courses. Please see paragraph ‘crediting of prior experience’ in this section and items 13 and 31 for further details.
Finally, several comments requested the deletion of the skill test and English language requirements. The Agency strongly believes that to ensure a minimum standard and consistency both requirements should be kept and therefore decided to keep the skill test and the FCL.055 English language proficiency requirements as proposed by the NPA. The method of assessment shall be established by the competent authority.
Prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments
With GM1 Appendix 6 (6)(c) an additional GM was developed in order to address the issue of prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments. The three scenarios under which prior experience of flight time by reference to instruments as PIC will be credited as instrument flight time are:
Flight time should have been completed:
- instrument flight time under a rating providing the privileges to fly under IFR and in IMC issued by a competent authority of a Member State; or
- instrument flight time under a national instrument rating issued by a Member State completed before Part-FCL entered into force; or
- instrument flight time under a valid IR(A) issued in compliance with the requirements of Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention by a third country.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tetrimmo
On the face if it this looks like good news for third country holders of IRs.
Just a flight test and oral exam is a very good result!
Still no clarity on conversion of FAA ATP to equivalent EASA licences ?
Pace
On the face if it this looks like good news for third country holders of IRs.
Just a flight test and oral exam is a very good result!
Still no clarity on conversion of FAA ATP to equivalent EASA licences ?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 31st Oct 2012 at 21:26.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Pace
Part-FCL.008 don't deal with license conversion
This is to be treated under the BASA agreement between EASA and FAA
Part-FCL.008 don't deal with license conversion
This is to be treated under the BASA agreement between EASA and FAA
Last edited by Tetrimmo; 31st Oct 2012 at 21:10.
the required 50 hours of flying experience as PIC in IFR/IMC
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tetrimmo
But it does deal with converting a 3 rd country IR to an EASA one! Hope for us FAA guys in carrying equivalent licences
Pace ( sorry about the addressing mistake! An I phone on a train not the best for responses
But it does deal with converting a 3 rd country IR to an EASA one! Hope for us FAA guys in carrying equivalent licences
Pace ( sorry about the addressing mistake! An I phone on a train not the best for responses