3 rd country licence requirements delayed till 2014
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 rd country licence requirements delayed till 2014
EASA FCL Update 14 Dec 2010
From AOPA UK website and just confirming what appears to be the state of play.
Lets hope a Bilateral agreement is sorted in that time or if close another delay.
Regardless this is good news and will allow more time for opposition to it ever making law in Euope.
Pace
From AOPA UK website and just confirming what appears to be the state of play.
Lets hope a Bilateral agreement is sorted in that time or if close another delay.
Regardless this is good news and will allow more time for opposition to it ever making law in Euope.
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3rd Country part of this is only one part of the FCL paper.
There is a lot of rubbish about that has slipped under the radar. It is not all good news
There is a lot of rubbish about that has slipped under the radar. It is not all good news
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is already law......... It is contained in the basic regulation. All this does is delay the inevitable. It is just being used as a bargaining chip with the FAA. I would not get your hopes up. As Robin says an awful lot more slipped through.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not inevitable at all.
You need to read the basic reg. It is a load of waffle, with vague phrases which nobody could have voted against. It's got stuff like '3rd country aircraft will be subject to EC regulation' which (a) nobody could vote against because to do so is saying that there will be no control whatever over 3rd country aircraft and (b) they already are anyway - the UK CAA can bust an N-reg for being illegally maintained, not carrying airspace-mandated equipment, etc.
It's a standard political trick. You knock up vague 'enabling regulation' which is guaranteed to pass, and then you build the contentious stuff on the back of that, relying on several dishonest devices:
- few people will notice
- few people will understand it if there is 600 pages of detail
- if somebody objects, you say you are only delivering on law which the EU has already passed
Nothing new here. The gravy train riders in Brussels have had 50 years of practice but the Romans had all this pretty well polished > 2000 years ago.
You need to read the basic reg. It is a load of waffle, with vague phrases which nobody could have voted against. It's got stuff like '3rd country aircraft will be subject to EC regulation' which (a) nobody could vote against because to do so is saying that there will be no control whatever over 3rd country aircraft and (b) they already are anyway - the UK CAA can bust an N-reg for being illegally maintained, not carrying airspace-mandated equipment, etc.
It's a standard political trick. You knock up vague 'enabling regulation' which is guaranteed to pass, and then you build the contentious stuff on the back of that, relying on several dishonest devices:
- few people will notice
- few people will understand it if there is 600 pages of detail
- if somebody objects, you say you are only delivering on law which the EU has already passed
Nothing new here. The gravy train riders in Brussels have had 50 years of practice but the Romans had all this pretty well polished > 2000 years ago.
