CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
From: Poland
Community legislative acts shall be drafted clearly, simply and precisely. The drafting of a legislative act must be:
clear, easy to understand and unambiguous;
simple, concise, containing no unnecessary elements;
and precise, leaving no uncertainty in the mind of the reader
Perhaps someone should remind the 140 rule makers employed by EASA of this!
clear, easy to understand and unambiguous;
simple, concise, containing no unnecessary elements;
and precise, leaving no uncertainty in the mind of the reader
Perhaps someone should remind the 140 rule makers employed by EASA of this!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
No, this is UK CAA drafting.
It also contains various mistakes which are immediately obvious to anybody who has watched the anti-N-reg proposals.
EASA proposes that the crew to require EASA papers if the operator is EU based.
The CAA version, which is supposed to aligned with EASA, requires the crew to have EASA papers if any crewmember or the operator is EU based.
It also contains various mistakes which are immediately obvious to anybody who has watched the anti-N-reg proposals.
EASA proposes that the crew to require EASA papers if the operator is EU based.
The CAA version, which is supposed to aligned with EASA, requires the crew to have EASA papers if any crewmember or the operator is EU based.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
No; the CAA has no right to add restrictions to EU regs. So this is a mystery; it appears to be extremely poor (or wishful) drafting.
MM_flynn's points above also remain, so the whole thing makes little sense.
In the commercial context, you are talking about AOC ops, and they would be exempted, otherwise e.g. a Brit could never get a job with Continental and fly an N-reg 747 into LHR. Quite where such an exemption appears in the ANO, I have no idea. I suspect it has never actually existed but for obvious practical reasons nobody has bothered otherwise all airlines would have to employ 100% own citizens/residents.
MM_flynn's points above also remain, so the whole thing makes little sense.
In the commercial context, you are talking about AOC ops, and they would be exempted, otherwise e.g. a Brit could never get a job with Continental and fly an N-reg 747 into LHR. Quite where such an exemption appears in the ANO, I have no idea. I suspect it has never actually existed but for obvious practical reasons nobody has bothered otherwise all airlines would have to employ 100% own citizens/residents.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The CAA does refer to the 2 year derogation in this new document, e.g. page 10.
In this doc, they have correctly stated the EASA position re the operator being non EU resident, and they explicitly state that the N-reg situation is OK till April 2014.
What is not clear (that I can see) is whether the present ICAO IR to JAA IR 15-hour conversion option will also continue till April 2014, or will end April 2012 as it currently appears.
In this doc, they have correctly stated the EASA position re the operator being non EU resident, and they explicitly state that the N-reg situation is OK till April 2014.
What is not clear (that I can see) is whether the present ICAO IR to JAA IR 15-hour conversion option will also continue till April 2014, or will end April 2012 as it currently appears.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 1
From: United Kingdom
The 15 hour conversion option for the holder of an ICAO IR relates to the issue of a JAA rating; the UK may not issue any JAA licence or rating after 8 April 2011. The derogations allow existing JAA/national qualifications to be used in EASA aircraft for the periods stated. To have an IR issued after 8 April 2011, it will be necessary to comply with the the requirements of Part-FCL.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The 15 hour conversion option for the holder of an ICAO IR relates to the issue of a JAA rating; the UK may not issue any JAA licence or rating after 8 April 2011. The derogations allow existing JAA/national qualifications to be used in EASA aircraft for the periods stated. To have an IR issued after 8 April 2011, it will be necessary to comply with the the requirements of Part-FCL.
Did you mean 8 April 2012?
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
From: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
The CAA version, which is supposed to aligned with EASA, requires the crew to have EASA papers if any crewmember or the operator is EU based.
Are there many such operators and if so how many; how many pilots will be affected by this and what are the operators doing about it now? Are they just getting on with retraining their pilots; are they lobbying like mad to get this changed? There seem few actual examples being quoted.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Most pilots of non-G-reg corporate ops will have only FAA papers, validated if appropriate by the registry of the aircraft e.g. IOM.
So the effects would be pretty wide in the corporate jet sector.
Pilots employed by AOC operators will have JAA papers anyway so they are unlikely to be affected.
However, the bigger operators will easily set up a "non EU resident operator" structure - if they do not have one already.
There is probably some lobbying taking place within the EU. Manufacturers of turboprops and jets will be very concerned about this.
So the effects would be pretty wide in the corporate jet sector.
Pilots employed by AOC operators will have JAA papers anyway so they are unlikely to be affected.
However, the bigger operators will easily set up a "non EU resident operator" structure - if they do not have one already.
are they lobbying like mad to get this changed? There seem few actual examples being quoted.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: Bristol
What it amounts to is operators based in the EU and operating "N" reg aircraft and relying on EU resident pilots holding only FAA licences to fly those aircraft. So, we are not taking about dual qualified pilots.
I believe the number of pilots who have an FAA IR but not a JAA IR is somewhere over 10,000 in Europe.
I know many of the 10,000 are not commercial, but all will be badly affected - me included. Like many others, I am 'lobbying' as best I can i.e. I write and e-mail frequently to MEPs, MPs etc. - although rarely get a response, and I have no contacts other than looking at the 'contact your MP/MEP' sites.
The upshot will be without an IR, no European touring, so no point in me having a plane.. so like thousands of others in the same position, I will give up flying - in the end it becomes just too much effort and pain trying to dance around the ever-increasing EASA stupidity.
So, amongst non-commercial operators - it will directly affect thousands (plus the many companies and jobs that depend upon the money we currently spend).
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in England
Well said Silvaire 1 (and Sir Winston, of course!). The trouble is that we are now in the very state where "control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing ... governments to a degree which is overwhelming...." Sir Winston was speaking from our free and independant United Kingdom which happily traded with the rest of the Commonwealth and was beholden to no-one. Today, things are very different where we trade mostly with our European neighbours. Our young generation are conditioned to accept things how they are and will readily accept the creeping removal of some remaining freedoms without complaint...and so it goes on. The governments are in effect run by Civil Servants and there is probably more than a grain of truth behind the television series 'Yes, Minister'.
In our very small aviation community with its very small voice, I for one do not have the faintest idea what can be done to turn back the clock and throw off these shackles. I'm very fed up with the current situation. Yours, frustrated of UK.
In our very small aviation community with its very small voice, I for one do not have the faintest idea what can be done to turn back the clock and throw off these shackles. I'm very fed up with the current situation. Yours, frustrated of UK.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I'll just continue to fly as I do now - an N reg with FAA IR. I also have JAA PPL along with IMC rating, and if I get ramp checked, I'll leave it up to "them" to determine where I am domiciled, or whether the aircraft operator is based in the EU.
I can't be bothered to jump through hoops for these clowns. Worse case scenario I'll take one last flight to take my aeroplane to the USA and sell it there. I'll then buy a boat, and do all of my flying in the USA.
I can't be bothered to jump through hoops for these clowns. Worse case scenario I'll take one last flight to take my aeroplane to the USA and sell it there. I'll then buy a boat, and do all of my flying in the USA.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
One might expect our CAA, whose sole task is to regulate for safety, to make the transition as simple and seamless as possible, but it appears they are wallowing in the mire of bureaucracy and attempting to preserve and emphasise every little piece on nonsense they can find. What's the betting one or two States not far away will just give everyone with a PPL an EASA PPL! At the end of the day its just a piece of paper and all the other claptrap will not enhance safety one iota.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Yeah, but a PPL has never been much of a problem. Medical issues aside (and yes these will ground some pilots for ever) a PPL conversion is basically easy.
The big Q is whether anybody will convert an FAA IR into an EASA IR.
Englishal - I agree that ramp enforcement is going to be zero, because of the impossible "residence" test. It is insurance that would concern me. Insurers love grey areas which enable them to play... they can ignore them, until you stick a big claim in and then they pull it out.
The big Q is whether anybody will convert an FAA IR into an EASA IR.
Englishal - I agree that ramp enforcement is going to be zero, because of the impossible "residence" test. It is insurance that would concern me. Insurers love grey areas which enable them to play... they can ignore them, until you stick a big claim in and then they pull it out.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
I don't see how insurance could not pay out. You are correctly licensed to fly the N tail number plane in all respects - In fact as soon as you enter foreign airspace you are REQUIRED to hold these certificates. No where else in the world requires you to be dual licensed to fly a particular tail letter.
Actually I would be licesensed as I hold a JAA (EASA) PPL but not the IR so they'd have to prove I was flying in IMC
Actually I would be licesensed as I hold a JAA (EASA) PPL but not the IR so they'd have to prove I was flying in IMC
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
From: Belgium
tip for Aerials...
I for one do not have the faintest idea what can be done to turn back the clock and throw off these shackles. I'm very fed up with the current situation. Yours, frustrated of UK.
- Reject the current EASA / Commission draft measure through a resolution for objection - they need to talk to the rapporteur, Said El Khadraoui (labour, BEL), who is well aware of the situation, to get this done.
- Talk to Philip Hammond about the pending regulatory mishap and what a mess the Commission (including recently appointed UK director Mike Baldwin) is making of things and how the Commission is deliberately deceiving the European Parliament deliberately confusing mutual licence recognition issues and equating private flying (as a proper means of individual transport) with recreational flying and sightseeing.
- Ask the Commission to redo their homework properly, so that a uniform licensing system can be implemented without affecting flying privileges that have existed for decades. "Grandfathering" springs to mind.
- Demand from the Commission to conduct further proceedings in a transparent and non-disruptive manner, with clear communications and without hidden agendas, so that everyone involved in the process can be made accountable for their actions and so that future personal conflicts of interest can be avoided in the legislative process
- Demand from the Commission to temporarily suspend Article 70 from the basic regulation (216/2008) to buy time for clarification and implementation.
Don't wait. Get on the phone or behind your laptop and do it now...
...you may have to fight them on the beaches, but it'll be your finest hour !
PP.
Last edited by proudprivate; 16th June 2011 at 09:50.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 1
From: In the boot of my car!
10540
The insurance would be an odd one. You have to be fully FAA licenced to meet insurance requirements on an FAA reg aircraft.
Example say you held all the EASA licences but not FAA you would not be insured to fly the FAA aircraft.
In that way any EASA licences would have NO bearing on the FAA aircraft they would purely be a technical requirement of EASA.
As such unless the insurance specifically requires you to hold the EASA licence as part of the insurance document you are fully licenced to fly the FAA aircraft with the EASA licences as a state requirement which has no relevance as such to the aircraft.
Pace
The insurance would be an odd one. You have to be fully FAA licenced to meet insurance requirements on an FAA reg aircraft.
Example say you held all the EASA licences but not FAA you would not be insured to fly the FAA aircraft.
In that way any EASA licences would have NO bearing on the FAA aircraft they would purely be a technical requirement of EASA.
As such unless the insurance specifically requires you to hold the EASA licence as part of the insurance document you are fully licenced to fly the FAA aircraft with the EASA licences as a state requirement which has no relevance as such to the aircraft.
Pace
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Pace & Englishal
My case for not treating this carelessly is as I wrote above.
Sure the FAA papers will be good for an N-reg under ICAO.
Sure the EASA papers will be invalid for an N-reg under ICAO (because they do not comply with FAR 61.3, once you leave UK airspace, etc).
But that doesn't prevent the EU forcing each of its member states to implement a national airspace requirement for the pilot(s) to have EASA papers in addition to the ICAO-mandated FAA ones.
In exactly the same way that if you fly to the airspace of the Republic of Upper Volta, they may have an airspace requirement for you to carry a dead goat in the back of the plane.
ICAO does allow this, because every signatory retains (obviously, otherwise nobody would have signed the treaty) a total sovereignity over its own airspace.
An example closer to home is the UK ADF+DME requirement for IFR in CAS, widely flouted by many planes we know about. Those planes comply with State of Registry requirements, but they fail to comply with airspace requirements.
That this is not enforced is a comfort, of course, and any prosecution would be a bit of a farce anyway once you pulled out a lawyer who has more than 2 braincells and who knows what a DME is, and who would much enjoy having the CAA wrapped in knots explaining how a DME tells you a distance to a waypoint but somehow a GPS doesn't
The ANO requires "distance measuring equipment", not a "DME". I bet the CAA doesn't even dream of having these sleeping dogs tested in court because it would show what a charade this stuff is, and anyway they love reading the endless pprune debates on it Half the CAA is on pprune, at the office, and the other half is on Flyer.
But the fact is that if you do not meet the airspace requirement, you are not legal, and an insurer can just tell you to go and p1ss in the wind. The insurance policy does require you to be legal. You then have to sue him.
The fact that a law is meaningless (e.g. the "residence" test) doesn't help a whole lot. It will probably just mean that it will have to go to the High Court, which is 5 figures just to get started. Gosh, you can even get a JAA CPL/IR for that There is a lovely laid back fishing village in Greece...
The correct way is to fight these proposals, and given the way EASA is set up (in a bunker, etc) this involves informing MEPs etc. Democracy is EASA's achilles heel; they absolutely hate it. The whole thing is set up to use disinformation and lies, publishing massive tomes which almost nobody can decipher, and relies absolutely on the vast majority of stakeholders not knowing what is going on. Pre-internet, they would have pulled this off without anybody knowing.
If the proposals become law as currently written, we can have a fun debate on how to work with or around them. But remember that CAA, DfT and EASA people (including the top people in those organisations) are right here reading these forums.
My case for not treating this carelessly is as I wrote above.
Sure the FAA papers will be good for an N-reg under ICAO.
Sure the EASA papers will be invalid for an N-reg under ICAO (because they do not comply with FAR 61.3, once you leave UK airspace, etc).
But that doesn't prevent the EU forcing each of its member states to implement a national airspace requirement for the pilot(s) to have EASA papers in addition to the ICAO-mandated FAA ones.
In exactly the same way that if you fly to the airspace of the Republic of Upper Volta, they may have an airspace requirement for you to carry a dead goat in the back of the plane.
ICAO does allow this, because every signatory retains (obviously, otherwise nobody would have signed the treaty) a total sovereignity over its own airspace.
An example closer to home is the UK ADF+DME requirement for IFR in CAS, widely flouted by many planes we know about. Those planes comply with State of Registry requirements, but they fail to comply with airspace requirements.
That this is not enforced is a comfort, of course, and any prosecution would be a bit of a farce anyway once you pulled out a lawyer who has more than 2 braincells and who knows what a DME is, and who would much enjoy having the CAA wrapped in knots explaining how a DME tells you a distance to a waypoint but somehow a GPS doesn't
The ANO requires "distance measuring equipment", not a "DME". I bet the CAA doesn't even dream of having these sleeping dogs tested in court because it would show what a charade this stuff is, and anyway they love reading the endless pprune debates on it Half the CAA is on pprune, at the office, and the other half is on Flyer.But the fact is that if you do not meet the airspace requirement, you are not legal, and an insurer can just tell you to go and p1ss in the wind. The insurance policy does require you to be legal. You then have to sue him.
The fact that a law is meaningless (e.g. the "residence" test) doesn't help a whole lot. It will probably just mean that it will have to go to the High Court, which is 5 figures just to get started. Gosh, you can even get a JAA CPL/IR for that
There is a lovely laid back fishing village in Greece...The correct way is to fight these proposals, and given the way EASA is set up (in a bunker, etc) this involves informing MEPs etc. Democracy is EASA's achilles heel; they absolutely hate it. The whole thing is set up to use disinformation and lies, publishing massive tomes which almost nobody can decipher, and relies absolutely on the vast majority of stakeholders not knowing what is going on. Pre-internet, they would have pulled this off without anybody knowing.
If the proposals become law as currently written, we can have a fun debate on how to work with or around them. But remember that CAA, DfT and EASA people (including the top people in those organisations) are right here reading these forums.