EASA threat to operation of N Reg Aircraft
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK cannot determine licensing requirements to fly another state's aircraft
If Part FCL is implemented in the way proposed it seems to me that this will put every state signatory in breach of the Conventions, unless each EU state individually notifies the derrogations as they are required to do under the Convention.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just watch them! There is absolutely nothing in internationallaw to prevent it.
I am not so sure about that! EASA cannot regulate on licences or medicals reaquired to fly an FAA aircraft anymore than the FAA could come over here and determine what FAA licences are required to fly a G reg.
Having said that YES they can but the licences or medicals that they may require their citizens to hold cannot in law relate to the aircraft as that is a nonsense.
I know if my owner wants to convert his jet to G it would cost over $100,000
I had an instrument fail and calling into a maintenance unit they had one with CAA numbers on it. We legally could not fit the unit into an FAA aircraft.
How can they determine licences to use on an FAA aircraft.
They can on their citizens but as I posted before it might as well be a licence to drive a Black cab Taxi.
Break that law and I cannot see how an insurance is void as you would carry all the licences and medicals required to fly the FAA aircraft. The EASA licences although a state airspace requirement has no relation to the aircraft.
Yes a flight can be deemed illegal but that concerns overweight takeoffs , lack of medical etc. All diminshed safety items.
What I am saying here is you would be breaking a different type of Law. If not just have written into the insurance "will comply with all the regulations required by the FAA".
I am not that convinced that these suggestions would satisfy legal scruitiny?
Consider the Kingair? In the states it does not require a type rating in Europe it does but any type rating issued in Europe could not attach to an FAA kingair as that KingAir would not in itself comply with EASA?
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
What you do not seem to follow is that EASA can regulate flight within its own airspace and impose whatever regulations it wishes to. Within that airspace an aircraft of whatever registration is bound to comply with the regulations or the flight is illegal at that point of time. I do not understand your use of the phrase breaking a different type of law. The breach of the law would be a breach of the law applicable to that aircraft at that time. It might be a breach of a different regulation but would still be a breach of the law. If you can get your insurers to agree to a clause whereby the insurance would be valid provided that the aircraft is operated in accordance with FAA legislation and no other law or regulation applying to the aircraft then good luck to you, but I think you will find that they are in the business of avoiding claims whenever possible.
As for your Kingair example it would be open to EASA to ban the operation of any Kingair within EASA airspace unless the PiC holds an EASA approved type rating. In such circumstances an FAA licence holder could not legally act as PiC of an N reg or any other Kingair within EASA airspace without the type rating. The fact that it is not an FAA requirement and the type rating would not attach to an FAA licence is irrelevant.
What you do not seem to follow is that EASA can regulate flight within its own airspace and impose whatever regulations it wishes to. Within that airspace an aircraft of whatever registration is bound to comply with the regulations or the flight is illegal at that point of time. I do not understand your use of the phrase breaking a different type of law. The breach of the law would be a breach of the law applicable to that aircraft at that time. It might be a breach of a different regulation but would still be a breach of the law. If you can get your insurers to agree to a clause whereby the insurance would be valid provided that the aircraft is operated in accordance with FAA legislation and no other law or regulation applying to the aircraft then good luck to you, but I think you will find that they are in the business of avoiding claims whenever possible.
As for your Kingair example it would be open to EASA to ban the operation of any Kingair within EASA airspace unless the PiC holds an EASA approved type rating. In such circumstances an FAA licence holder could not legally act as PiC of an N reg or any other Kingair within EASA airspace without the type rating. The fact that it is not an FAA requirement and the type rating would not attach to an FAA licence is irrelevant.
The specific case I was referencing was - A UK CAA issued lifetime PPL upon which our pilot has a 61.75 licence issued. The pilot has a current BFR, is in the US, rents an Nreg from a unambigously US Operator. Is he legal to fly post 2012?
(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.
Whether he will then be able to fly that aircraft in EU airspace without an EASA licence is another matter, but still not one for the UK to determine.
The real question is whether the FAA will accept a licence issued by EASA (which is not a contracting state) under Part 61.75. I expect the answer will be that the licence is actually issued by the signatory state (e.g. the UK CAA) in accordance with EASA Part FCL, not by EASA itself.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I thought EASA are desperately trying to get a seat or two as an ICAO member? Will they not be let in to this all too cosy club. 
Maybe if they carry on as they are America might want to excercise its veto.
Maybe if they carry on as they are America might want to excercise its veto.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be up to the FAA to decide whether the certificate remains valid (i.e. whether they still accept the UK national licence). My reading of the requirement suggests that they will so long as the UK remains an ICAO contracting state.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
October 10, 2010
European IFR Pilots Work For Compromise Email this article |Print this article
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief
A group representing instrument-rated private pilots in Europe is hopeful that new unified standards for all IFR operations can be implemented without causing undue hardship for those who now fly under FAA certificates. In a podcast interview with AVweb, Jim Thorpe, vice chairman of PPL/IR Europe, said negotiations between the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA toward standardized licensing requirements have failed and EASA's controversial move to make its own standards mandatory by 2012 is part of the process toward achieving the unified standard. FAA certificates are currently accepted in Europe and many pilots there fly on them because FAA standards require much less dual and ground school than those in Europe. He said the rules currently being proposed are intended for commercial pilots and he's hopeful a less onerous approach will be taken for the relatively few IFR-rated private pilots in Europe.
The new rules also affect maintenance and certification standards for aircraft but Thorpe said he doesn't think that will be a significant barrier to U.S.-made aircraft. "The proposals there are pretty benign now and there's really no reason an N-registered aircraft couldn't be operated in Europe," Thorpe said. He said the long-term goal should be a set of common standards but in the meantime he's hopeful that transitional regulations will ease the burden on pilots who will be affected by the changes.
European IFR Pilots Work For Compromise Email this article |Print this article
By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief
A group representing instrument-rated private pilots in Europe is hopeful that new unified standards for all IFR operations can be implemented without causing undue hardship for those who now fly under FAA certificates. In a podcast interview with AVweb, Jim Thorpe, vice chairman of PPL/IR Europe, said negotiations between the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA toward standardized licensing requirements have failed and EASA's controversial move to make its own standards mandatory by 2012 is part of the process toward achieving the unified standard. FAA certificates are currently accepted in Europe and many pilots there fly on them because FAA standards require much less dual and ground school than those in Europe. He said the rules currently being proposed are intended for commercial pilots and he's hopeful a less onerous approach will be taken for the relatively few IFR-rated private pilots in Europe.
The new rules also affect maintenance and certification standards for aircraft but Thorpe said he doesn't think that will be a significant barrier to U.S.-made aircraft. "The proposals there are pretty benign now and there's really no reason an N-registered aircraft couldn't be operated in Europe," Thorpe said. He said the long-term goal should be a set of common standards but in the meantime he's hopeful that transitional regulations will ease the burden on pilots who will be affected by the changes.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'A less onerous approach!'
So Russ Niles thinks that a less onerous approach will be taken against FAA PPL's with IR's, as he says these regs are mostly aimed at FAA CPL/ATPL's.
I really hope he succeeds with this, it'll give the perfect evidence that these proposed rules are utter madness.
If EASA give a straightforward conversion or even no conversion required for an FAA PPL/IR to an EASA IR, they are actually saying that a pilot holding an FAA PPL/IR is safer to fly IFR in Europe, than an FAA CPL/IR or ATP.
As we know EASA are basing this on safety, yet no published study or findings have been made public, because it has already been proved that FAA licenced pilots are as safe as their European counterparts.
The perfect ammo for myself and many more like me to drag this one through the courts.
I really hope he succeeds with this, it'll give the perfect evidence that these proposed rules are utter madness.
If EASA give a straightforward conversion or even no conversion required for an FAA PPL/IR to an EASA IR, they are actually saying that a pilot holding an FAA PPL/IR is safer to fly IFR in Europe, than an FAA CPL/IR or ATP.
As we know EASA are basing this on safety, yet no published study or findings have been made public, because it has already been proved that FAA licenced pilots are as safe as their European counterparts.
The perfect ammo for myself and many more like me to drag this one through the courts.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I think that you will find that if these rules get voted in, anything could happen in terms of some extremely p*ssed off licencing authorities.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the FAA outlawed the 'issued on the basis of your JAA licence' for starters. I wouldn't blame them, they could easily ban a JAA licence due to safety concerns. Maybe even ban all of those FAA certs that have been issued already on the basis of a JAA licence. That must run into thousands.
It really wouldn't surprise me if the FAA outlawed the 'issued on the basis of your JAA licence' for starters. I wouldn't blame them, they could easily ban a JAA licence due to safety concerns. Maybe even ban all of those FAA certs that have been issued already on the basis of a JAA licence. That must run into thousands.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be up to the FAA to decide whether the certificate remains valid (i.e. whether they still accept the UK national licence). My reading of the requirement suggests that they will so long as the UK remains an ICAO contracting state.
(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.
Whether he will then be able to fly that aircraft in EU airspace without an EASA licence is another matter, but still not one for the UK to determine.
The real question is whether the FAA will accept a licence issued by EASA (which is not a contracting state) under Part 61.75. I expect the answer will be that the licence is actually issued by the signatory state (e.g. the UK CAA) in accordance with EASA Part FCL, not by EASA itself.
(a) General. A person who holds a foreign pilot license at the private pilot level or higher that was issued by a contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation may apply for and be issued a U.S. private pilot certificate with the appropriate ratings if the foreign pilot license meets the requirements of this section.
Whether he will then be able to fly that aircraft in EU airspace without an EASA licence is another matter, but still not one for the UK to determine.
The real question is whether the FAA will accept a licence issued by EASA (which is not a contracting state) under Part 61.75. I expect the answer will be that the licence is actually issued by the signatory state (e.g. the UK CAA) in accordance with EASA Part FCL, not by EASA itself.
It is for this reason that the CAAs view of how they implement the EASA rules is the deciding factor on validity. I can not see how the FAA can be expected to determine non-documented potential restrictions. It is up to the CAA in their implementing rules (or lack of them).
Re-EASA as a State, my understanding is exactly as you comment. The various European Contracting States will actually issue the EASA licences, not EASA directly.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if they carry on as they are America might want to excercise its veto
He said the rules currently being proposed are intended for commercial pilots and he's hopeful a less onerous approach will be taken for the relatively few IFR-rated private pilots in Europe
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is that Eric Sivel may well have said something like this to Person X, but being a politician he will also say something different to Person Y.
All we have to go on is their published proposals.
It would make sense to defuse the argument at the "bottom of the GA food chain" by giving FAA PPL/IRs an EASA PPL/IR, though I cannot see this happening without an initial checkride, for obvious "Euro emotional safety crap" reasons.
However this still doesn't deal with the people higher up e.g. paid CPL/IRs flying corporate and private jets, who will be facing the full 14 exams etc. I suppose a lot of the operators will be able to set up off-EU "operator" structures but not all.
I bet EASA is furiously doing off the record "briefings"
as we speak, trying to minimise the number of NO votes. So I would expect a lot more "cloud" coming out this week.
All we have to go on is their published proposals.
It would make sense to defuse the argument at the "bottom of the GA food chain" by giving FAA PPL/IRs an EASA PPL/IR, though I cannot see this happening without an initial checkride, for obvious "Euro emotional safety crap" reasons.
However this still doesn't deal with the people higher up e.g. paid CPL/IRs flying corporate and private jets, who will be facing the full 14 exams etc. I suppose a lot of the operators will be able to set up off-EU "operator" structures but not all.
I bet EASA is furiously doing off the record "briefings"
as we speak, trying to minimise the number of NO votes. So I would expect a lot more "cloud" coming out this week.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a hotel
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wont be sitting 14 exams ! Neither will most of the others that I've spoken to about this rubbish.
You see, in Corporate we can't take the amount of time off required for the study and the sitting of the worthless 14 exams. It would be immediate loss of job if we did.
Having spoken with a lot of other Pilots in the same situation as me, we will however be dragging EASA and Mr Snivel through the courts if these idiotic and frankly illegal proposals are voted in.
You see, in Corporate we can't take the amount of time off required for the study and the sitting of the worthless 14 exams. It would be immediate loss of job if we did.
Having spoken with a lot of other Pilots in the same situation as me, we will however be dragging EASA and Mr Snivel through the courts if these idiotic and frankly illegal proposals are voted in.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, everybody, here is the URL for your MEPs.
Write to them TODAY.
Keep it brief, no copy/paste from elsewhere, and tell them how it will affect you and how it is purely a cynical in-your-face EU political measure with zero safety benefit.
Including this URL may not be a bad thing, as it is a well written background article.
Here is a tiny URL version of the above, which will be better for copying and pasting in the webform.
Spread the word on other forums, etc.
Write to them TODAY.
Keep it brief, no copy/paste from elsewhere, and tell them how it will affect you and how it is purely a cynical in-your-face EU political measure with zero safety benefit.
Including this URL may not be a bad thing, as it is a well written background article.
Here is a tiny URL version of the above, which will be better for copying and pasting in the webform.
Spread the word on other forums, etc.