Logging time in homebuild

[Pace]

There has been talk that EASA cannot take away existing privileges

Robin

Not wanting to go off permit aircraft but does that include N reg privalages?
In UK law accepted practice over a considerable length of time gains legal rights on its own merit.

N reg has been accepted practice in Europe for far longer than the EC has been in existance with a whole industry developed around it in Europe.
Does N reg in Europe have legal rights to exist and recourse against those who try to eliminate it especially without due cause and away from the mandate that EASA has?

No one has answered that question YET??????????????????????????

Pace

[robin]

That's a good question, but remember we are now under EU law and UK precedent is probably trumped by that since we have handed sovereignty over.

[Justiciar]

Anything on Permit or Annexe II are outside the scope of EASA and so the CAA can choose to do anything it wants for those that fly them.

Yes, I can certainly see that point. It seems to me that in FCL EASA could have made revalidation experience conditional on 12 hours in an EASA C of A aircraft. In fact they have not done that and simply specified that the hours have to be in the relevant class. For most of us that would be SEP. Annex II aircraft are of course not subject to the FCL licensing requirements nor the maintenance requirements. However, there is nothing to say that an Annex II aircraft is not still a SEP, which it clearly is, so I cannot see anything preventing you building your 12 hours on a Chipmunk, Tiger Moth or RV7 as they are all SEP. Being really devilish, it seems that you could say that what we in the UK term Microlights are also SEP! If you can count hours on any Annex II aircraft then that would appear to include microlights.

The arrangement is really quite loose and in fact there is no reason why, if you fly around Australia for 20 hours with the benefit of a temporary validation to your licence those hours should not also count, even though they are not hours in an EASA or even Annex II aircraft, as those definitions cover aircraft registered in a member state of the EU.

[Pace]

but remember we are now under EU law and UK precedent is probably trumped by that since we have handed sovereignty over.

But equally we have strong human right and discrimination rights within EU law.
As presently laid out both would appear to be answerable in the European Courts.
Age discrimination in the fact that there is no allowance made for working FAA ATPS who may not have more than a few years to run in their carears and could not possibly justify the huge expense as recoverable through earnings over time as would say the 30 yr old ATP.

Pilots in their mid 50s would effectively have their careers cut off by this legislation.

Human rights by the fact that pilots going about their legal business and established and accepted business over considerable time would be financially damaged by this legislation.

Lastly I actually wonder whether EASAs antics in creating this legislation could be challenged on the basis that it is not legislation created within their mandate of safety (admitted by EASA themselves)

Pace

[BillieBob]

Flight in non EASA aircraft not counting towards the issue or revalidation of an EASA licence?

Whereabouts in the Basic Regulation or in the proposed Part FCL does it say that flight in non-EASA aircraft cannot be counted towards the issue of an EASA licence? Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

[Justiciar]

Age discrimination in the fact that there is no allowance made for working FAA ATPS who may not have more than a few years to run in their carears and could not possibly justify the huge expense as recoverable through earnings over time as would say the 30 yr old ATP.

That is an interesting point. European legislation prevents discrimination on grounds of age and also race, which includes nationality.

To succeed in a claim for indirect age or race discrimination, an individual or group of individuals would have to show that the regulations had a disproportionate and detrimental impact on them by reason of their age or nationality. EASA (or untimately the Commission) would then have to show that those regulations were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end, in this case ensuring adequate oversight of foreign licence holding pilots established in the EU. They might find this difficult as there are clearly better, less costly and less bureaucratic means of achieving this aim which do not put older and non EU nationals who are foreign licence holders at a disadvantage as compared with EU citizens holding EASA licences. This would not be an argument that EU holders of, say, an FAA licences could bring to bear. An easy validation or conversion process based upon experience would probably do this and in the case of an IR an initial skills test equivalent to the annual revalidation for the current JAA IR would undoubtedly be proportionate.

Talking though in the abstract is not enough and it would take an actual group to take or threaten proceedings. That requires money and some political clout to ensure that the threat would trigger a genuine dialogue. AOPA?

Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

It is the SEP Class rating that is revalidated, not the licence itself. I think this takes the position back to the position with the old UK PPL.

[S-Works]

Since an EASA licence is non-expiring, it does not require revalidation.

Come on you of all people should know the difference between revalidation's and renewals.

I am sat looking at Cliff Whitakers slide set the contains an over view of the situation. It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

As I said earlier I am standing by to be educated by you as to why I am wrong.

[Justiciar]

It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

Yet absolutely no where does it say that in licensing terms you are limited to something with an EASA C of A! Of course, to train for a licence or rating you wil be constrained by other requirements, i.e. maintenance, to use a fully certificated aircraft, though that begs the question as to where the restricted type certificate aircraft sit.

But, revalidation by experience is not the same as training and experience means exactly that. I would like to know what Mr. Whitaker's authority for that position is. I, like you, am prepared to be educated, but I suspect that when it comes to a revalidation by experience, the NAA will be the judge as to whether logged hours amount to "experience" for the purpose of Part FCL. FCL merely talks about hours logged in the appropriate class to which the licence relates. As the regulations do not define what a particular Class is beyond saying that Class "means a categorisation of single-pilot aeroplanes not requiring a type rating", the wording seems open to subjective interpretation.

If Mr. Whitaker is right it is rather surprising that this very significant point has not been picked up by the CAA as of course it will mean that anyone operating a permit or Annex II aircraft will be saddled with having to renew biennially by test. It also then raises issues such as can you ever do differences training on a Permit/Annex II aircraft?

There may of course be more regulation coming which defines various class categories, but at the moment the only one defined is Touring Motor Glider!

[WestWind1950]

European legislation prevents discrimination on grounds of age and also race, which includes nationality.

if that was true then why, as an American citizen living some 40 years in Europe, I am unable to get a job at EASA or any other European authority (tried ESOC, for example, but was a no-go). Isn't that discrimination, too? Luckily I'm no longer looking for a new job.

OK, bit off topic here.... sorry

[S-Works]

If Mr. Whitaker is right it is rather surprising that this very significant point has not been picked up by the CAA as of course it will mean that anyone operating a permit or Annex II aircraft will be saddled with having to renew biennially by test. It also then raises issues such as can you ever do differences training on a Permit/Annex II aircraft?

It has been picked up by the CAA, Cliff Whitaker is Head of Licencing or whatever name they go by these days.

Yes it does mean all the points you have made which is the theme of the CAA presentation and what they are considering going forward......

[Justiciar]

It has been picked up by the CAA, Cliff Whitaker is Head of Licencing or whatever name they go by these days.

Yes it does mean all the points you have made which is the theme of the CAA presentation and what they are considering going forward......

Where is this set out and when is the presentation? Perhaps the CAA need to have some dialogue on the subject with EASA. It is probable that the bureaucrats have failed to pick this up, if indeed their interpretation accords with that of the CAA, which it may not.

This interpretation seems to me to be nothing more than an opinion based upon the fact that FCL itself only relates to the required licences for EASA aircraft.

[robin]

As I said elsewhere, the CAA are not a lobbying organisation. Their role is to pepare to implement the EASA regulations into the ANO - nothing else.

When we had Part M, they could have accepted (as did other NAAs) the extension, but they didn't. They implemented earlier han anyone else before the rules were completely sorted.

If anyone thinks that the Belgrano will stand up for us.................!!!!

There is no reason why they can't go to EASA, for example to say how they propose to migrate pilots to the new licences. But, again, they won't. They will follow the letter of the law rather than push for pragmatic means of compliance

[Justiciar]

follow the letter of the law rather than push for pragmatic means of compliance

But the problem here is that the law, being as badly drafted as it is, is unclear. If the likes of the CAA will not engage in dialogue to arrive at a sensible, workable interpretation then it will be down to private individuals to seek a declaration from the courts.

[S-Works]

Off you go then........

[Genghis the Engineer]

Just on a detail point. Cliff Whittaker is "Head of Licensing & Training Policy", not head of licencing. In other words he's in charge of the policies, not the actual issue of licences.

I used to work opposite him when he was a design liaison surveyor, then policy manager in airworthiness - bloody sensible fellow who quietly did a great deal to support UK GA. (I've not spoken to him for a year or so however, so can't shed any light on this.)

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by WestWind1950

if that was true then why, as an American citizen living some 40 years in Europe, I am unable to get a job at EASA or any other European authority (tried ESOC, for example, but was a no-go). Isn't that discrimination, too? Luckily I'm no longer looking for a new job.

OK, bit off topic here.... sorry

Nationality so long as you are a citizen of an EU member state I think.

And even then, it's not really correct - states across Europe apply local standards to grant of student awards, to employment in state jobs, to recruitment in the armed forces, and so-on. Hardly surprising really.

G

[UAV689]

Hi all, late to coming to this thread.

So let me get this right. I currently have a JAA ppl, with sep and tmg on it. I mainly fly my tmg which is on a permit. So when this easa joke comes into force, will my jaa ppl become an easa one, and will I no longer be able to fly my rf3 which is on a pemit? And if I can fly it will that no longer count towards revalidating my ppl?

It is all so ridiculous!!!

[robin]

UAV689

Basically correct.

Your JAA PPL will automatically transfer to an EASA PPL. The CAA will let you fly a Permit aircraft on your EASA licence, so no problem there.

The problem is that the hours flown on the RF3 will not count towards the currency on an EASA PPL. In the second year you will either have to fly 12 hours in an EASA-type aircraft or do an LST with an examiner.

That might also mean flying a completely different type and that may require additional training. The LST will involve a short nav ex.

Clever eh?

[UAV689]

That is absolutely retarded. Thanks for clarifying. I am shocked. I knew easa was a joke but did not comprehend just what a bunch of morons they are.

So, if I renew it on a different aircraft, presumably they will want me to renew both my tmg and an sep, so 2 lst!!! I can't believe it. Who can I complain about this to?

I honestly can't believe this will be allowed to come into force!! Can we get the press e.g. Pilot etc to start campaigning also? it makes no sense at all, is the sky changing that is causing the laws of physics we have all been used to flying with changed?

Sometimes I wonder why I bother flying legally anyway,just refuse to conform!

Learning of this has made me proper angry now!

[dublinpilot]

It was him that told us that as EASA only has domain over EASA CofA aircraft and that only time logged in EASA CofA aircraft was countable against the issue or revalidation of an EASA Class Rating. In order to gain an EASA Part FCL licence or add a Class rating the the time must be logged in an EASA CofA aircraft.

So lets follow that logic a little bit further.

If you want to fly an N-Reg aircraft in Europe, under EASA's proposals you would need both FAA licences and EASA licences.

Yet when it comes to revalidating that EASA licence (which is only required for EASA rules) you wouldn't be able to count your hours on the N reg aircraft towards revalidation by experience hours, because the aircraft was not an EASA CofA aircraft, it was an FAA one!

I somehow figure Justiciar might be correct, and we are reading too much into it.