CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA

[Justiciar]

The majority of N reg operators are ordinary people operating under a flag of convenience generally for the purposes of an IR. It is this people who are getting caught up in this.

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement. However, even if were true, the fact is that the whole intention of ICAO is that it shouldn't matter. If an aircraft is maintained and the pilot qualified to ICAO minimum standards the nationality of the aircraft irrelevent.

and can impose regulations on their citizens, including not permitting them to operate 3rd country aircraft within their home state

But the point is that EASA have not taken the obvious route available to them, by doing what is allowed under the convention and refusing to recognise third country licences granted to nationals of EU countries, which would be a clear definition and easy to police. This proposal pays absolutely no regard to nationality or citizenship. Their decision to try and regulate based upon residence or establishment is clearly an attempt to introduce protectionist measures which will hit any pilot irrespective of nationality who happens to be "resident" in the EU.

How many N reg pilots in Europe have the luxury of spending big chunks of time in New York

I don't know and neither do you, EASA or anyone else, and that is the point. The impact of this in economic and commercial terms has simply not been assessed. You cannot assume it is a minority. It does not of course have to be New York; what about say Jersey or the Isle of Man or Switzerland, neither of which is part of the EU. I certainly know several people who divide their time between the UK and one or other of those jurisdictions. It actually doesn't matter exactly "how many". The point is that ascertaining whether a pilot is legal by reference to residence is going to be difficult if not impossible in many cases.

If BEagle's figures of 68,000 are any where near correct (I would be interested to know where that comes from) then that reprsents a huge cost for either individuals or companies to pick up in a recession with no possibility of recouping that expenditure. It is not as if any of it will contribute to enhanced profit for commercial entities; quite the reverse.

We are not of course talking about people clearly established in the EU because they pay tax, have children born here etc. We are talking about the many whose work or business takes them to different parts of the world for short or long periods of time. They may or may not be professional pilots but they may seek to exercise their licence privileges in say N reg aircraft whilst their work takes them to the EU for a week, month, year at a time.

Secondly the onus would probably be put on the pilot to prove he is not an EC resident rather than the authorities proving he is!

Actually no, as if it came to it the burden would be on the prosecution to show that someone was flying illegally and they would have to show on the facts that the pilot was "resident" in the EU.

[S-Works]

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement. However, even if were true, the fact is that the whole intention of ICAO is that it shouldn't matter. If an aircraft is maintained and the pilot qualified to ICAO minimum standards the nationality of the aircraft irrelevent.

Its information freely out there. It's information freeely being discussed on this forum. I doubt IO keeps an apartment in New York and Pace has already stated that he does not.

It is not that I disagree with your sentiment, the purpose of ICAO is just as you state it just that your argument is flawed. The vast majority of N Reg operators ARE ordinary people flying ordinary aircraft on the N reg who live in Europe with no legitimate US address. The vast majority off them already state the reason they operate on the N reg is the IR.

After all if it was just the PPL then as long as they have the 100hrs they can get a JAA one with nothing more than an air law exam.

[IO540]

Either the EASA regs will not have a practical impact on FRA operators or they will.

I have explained who I think will get caught up and who won't.

I think the main intention of the FRA regs was to capture low-end GA. Turbine FRA have always been part of the scene in Europe. I believe it was the growth of light SEP on foreign registers that triggered some of the moves against FRA, perhaps when regulators realised the majority of non-training GA was going to end up on the N, flown by FAA IRs.

But who should care? There is no safety issue. These pilots are not depriving the national schools of revenue because they are not having new training. And even I don't go for the cynical view that this is all a FTO/ATO revenue generation exercise, though without a shadow of doubt the FTOs are out there lobbying (discreetly, because nobody will be seen dead doing a filthy deed openly) to block the N-reg scene.

It is purely emotional IOW a private project.

Again, I don't know the authority for this statement.

Bose is just winding people up. He claimed to have been flying on an FAA IR since about 2004. The subject of some hilarious Flyer threads.... Pot and kettle.

It is not as if any of it will contribute to enhanced profit for commercial entities; quite the reverse.

Because the extra "training" is just a paper collection charade, most of them will go to Spain or Greece, where you can knock it off efficiently, not the pricey N European FTOs.

Actually no, as if it came to it the burden would be on the prosecution to show that someone was flying illegally and they would have to show on the facts that the pilot was "resident" in the EU.

In a criminal prosecution, exactly.

Like I said earlier, it is the insurance position that will hold the key to all this.

[S-Works]

I am not winding anyone up IO. Although as usual you instantly take to personally insulting me. You are such a child. Try actually reading what people say rather than always being on the lookout for an excuse to make childish jibes. Otherwise we could start on the anecdotal stories of your FAA PPL skill test......

As someone who has been dual qualified for many years I should not really be bothered.

But, the point I am making is that the average N reg flyer will not have the ability to claim residence outside of the EU. Justicairs argument is flawed.

According IO's very own words over the, years the reason he operates on the N reg was that he did not want to the 'pointless' JAA exams. Although he is biting the bullet now......

The FAA provided him with a flag of convenience on order to do so. If you read the forums it is the same story over and over. Those people are ordinary people not business jet operators with dodgy domiciles and it is they who are going to be hit the hardest by it.

I really don't see what was wrong with the original ICAO agreement of mutual recognition. There is no safety case in this, just political motivation.

[IO540]

on the anecdotal stories of your FAA PPL skill test......

a story which you would have got from your very well known one-time "friend" in Norwich, who I have never flown with in any aircraft... and in that case, stones and glasshouses come to mind, as both of you have already found out after that notorious email between the two of you which was CCd to half the internet, accusing me of flying on fake licenses

For whose who wonder why I am doing the JAA IR: I am doing it because my view is that insurance will be an issue for those who do not have a non-EU address and cannot be bothered to organise one.

I also run my non-work time as a series of "projects". I have recently completed one big project, and the JAA IR seemed to be a viable way of filling in a few months of evenings, until I start the next one.

[Pace]

Bose

Sadly in my case I started an IR Years ago. As I wanted to fly corporate jets I took the FAA way right up to ATP as the majority of corporate jets were N reg, Cayman etc.
Ie I chose the path which would lead best to what I wanted to do.
Sadly for me I nearly took the paper conversion through Ireland and didnt.
Converting an FAA ATP to an EASA one wont be an easy or inexpensive exercise.
MIDDISH 50s it frankly wont make sense for me and I will probably chuck the whole lot in and get a piper cub or VLA for sunny days.

I dont have the motivation, the time, staying power or the desire to chuck away a huge amount of money just to do what I am already doing to satisfy some power crazed burocrat.

For me it is wrong! If EASA came up with a sensible reason for all this which was within their mandate like a shown safety issue then I would bite the bullit Convert to a PPL IR and Fly my jets with that.
The owners would have to pay me some other way or take payment through my FAA ATP?

Addendum
Anyone know whether an EASA PPL IR would suffice alongside an FAA ATP? rather than having to sit 14 exams?

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, I have no idea why you are pointing your comment at me. if you bother to read what I have written I am not condoning the action of EASA. I have every sympathy with those caught by it. However those who come up with methods of evasion are hardly going to do the cause any good.

I have merely pointed at that EASA are not replacing anything merely gold plating for political reasons of which there is no safety case for. 421C has made the same point, the EASA requirements are an overlay to what you already hold and unfortunately they DO have the legal right to do so.

Now considering that EASA are the European Aviation Safety Agency it makes it a bit hard to swallow.

a story which you would have got from your very well known one-time "friend" in Norwich, who I have never flown with in any aircraft... and in that case, stones and glasshouses come to mind, as both of you have already found out after that notorious email between the two of you which was CCd to half the internet, accusing me of flying on fake licenses

He has never been a friend of mine and I was just one of many people copied in on that rant. It was just as hilarious seeing you being made a dick of as you find it when doing the same to others.

The story of your failed FAA PPL test is also just as funny. Of course it was all the examiners fault. A story that came from elsewhere as well.... So lets quit throwing stones at each others greenhouses eh!

[IO540]

I never failed an FAA PPL test

[Justiciar]

Its information freely out there.

I am not sure that it is freely "out there" and no one seems actually to know what the figures are. But, even if those involved in commercial operations (like Pace) are only 15% of the number flying a "flag of convenience", there is still no justification in putting those pilots and/or their operators through the time and huge expense of a conversion where there is no safety case.

Have EASA filed notice of differences with ICAO? In fact, I don't believe they actually have any standing to do so as they are not a signatory. Adoption without filing a difference will put every EU country in breach of its obligations under the conventions.

I doubt IO keeps an apartment in New York and Pace has already stated that he does not.

I am sure that they don't but there will be quite a number who do. A regulation which cannot be universally, consistently and clearly applied is inherently bad.

[Pace]

Bose

Firstly you addressed your whole post above to me without making it clear that the second portion is directed at 10540.

Secondly I am just pointing out that even under EASA getting a PPL IR is far easier than converting an ATP which is a mammoth task!

A lot of the N reg discussion is directed at the PPL IR so my post is just to remind that some of us will have a bigger mountain to climb if this goes into law.

Pace

[S-Works]

Pace, I am addressing my post to you now, see how I address to 'pace'.....

You are arguing with the wrong person. At no time have agreed with the ruling nor do I support it. I am merely point it that making cries of illegal and discussions of avoidance are pointless. The rule making is legal, has been implemented and we need to work within the law to find a solution.

As far as your comments about refusing to do the ATPL exams etc, well thats your choice but it does strike me as a little bit of cutting your nose off to spite your face. We operate in one of the most highly regulated industries on the planet. We are always going to have pointless hoops to jump through. I did point out a number of years ago that this was coming and I recall you were one of the people that told me I was wrong! Unlike many I never underestimated the venom of the regulators and there political agendas.

The choices are pretty simple at this moment in time. Find a way of getting the rules changed, bite the bullet and meet the requirements or give up flying.

[IO540]

Have EASA filed notice of differences with ICAO? In fact, I don't believe they actually have any standing to do so as they are not a signatory. Adoption without filing a difference will put every EU country in breach of its obligations under the conventions.

I recall reading that EASA applied for a seat on ICAO and were told that this would be possible only if every EU member state resigned its seat. That's as far as it got

They can achieve the same result using the EU Directive route but yes this could be a long process...

Secondly I am just pointing out that even under EASA getting a PPL IR is far easier than converting an ATP which is a mammoth task!

You cannot ever get a JAA ATPL, because it requires 500hrs multi crew cockpit time. Well, maybe John Travolta could afford 500hrs in a sim

To comply with the EASA proposals, for your bizjet ops, you will need a JAA CPL/IR (ME). Your existing ICAO/FAA Type Rating is acceptable as it is.

So what is the easiest way to pick up a CPL/IR (ME)? My research so far points at FIS in Spain or Egnatia in Greece as being worth a closer look. I have visited the latter 2x on my trips down there. I've sent you some details some days ago. They quoted me 6k euros for a PPL/IR (ME) on a DA42, including their own (pretty basic) accomodation, and a CPL is I think another 20-30hrs. FIS is priced similarly, and being German-run may well be better organised.

You can also do it in the UK of course and this is worth considering if you need to fit it into a busy schedule. I may do that but if there is any hassle I will give the UK a miss. The UK is a lot more pricey, but you have the ability to do it in your own N-reg plane and you "just" pay for the instructor (£130/hr or so ).

This paper collection exercise is a total charade and you don't need to collect anything else beyond the most basic CPL and IR. If you fly a private 747 then you need an ME CPL/IR

The gotcha is that there is no obvious way around the 14 JAA exams. As an ICAO IR holder you get a dispensation to attend the classroom but this saves only about a week. I estimate this at several months of evenings, hammering the question bank. Memory retention is limited to 1-2 weeks max so the final month is the most important. I have 2 exams left to do (Met and Air Law) and plan to do 10 mock exams on each subject on each day during the final week, with extra revision with a laptop in the CAA car park on the morning of the exams. As an experienced IFR pilot you will start at 50% and each mock exam is worth about 1%.

The other gotcha, for some people, will be the need to do an Initial JAA Class 1 medical. Being an Initial medical, you don't get Demonstrated Ability on most (or any?) of it.

[Pace]

Sadly one of my co pilots who has now become a good friend and drinking buddy from pprune has an eyesight problem.
He failed the JAA class 1 but was passed on the FAA class 1 and hence holds FAA licences.
He holds an A320 type rating and an SIC which i trained him up to on the C500 Series.
As a European resident God knows where all this will leave him as he will fall down on getting the EASA class 1 medical?

Bose

I realise you are opposed to this. The main point which we all ignore probably because we regard EASA as a bunch of Liars and manipulators is that they extended the deadline from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of achieving a Bilateral agreement.

EASA stated that this was their chosen route blaming the FAA for holding things up.

This agreement was signed barely a couple of months ago opening the way for FCL or so it was said.

Nobody seems to put any weight to what EASA have publicly stated.
EASA stated that they are working hard and wont rest till this is achieved.
Why do I feel we have all been conned?

The only saving grace is in the commercial world where with the emergence of China and third world countries into the pilot demand market and the lack of new pilots coming in from below there will be a massive shortage of experienced pilots of all denominations.

This will mean that an agreement for mutual recognition will have to take place when we exit the world recession.

Pace

[BEagle]

Nobody seems to put any weight to what EASA have publicly stated.

Quelle surprise.....

"If you think we're going to gamble on EASA's guarantees, you're making a grave mistake. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall... and even then we won't listen!"

[Fuji Abound]

In reality I agree with Bose. The choices are self evident. As matters stand there are many who may not like them but that is the way it is and all the talking in the world will not change things.

It is probably never to late to whinge and protest mind you, and there is always a chance the legislation will be changed. The more that whinge and protest inevitably the better.

It is always worth picking the bones of the legislation - it is surprising how often the regulator manages to leave wriggle room in any legislation - and there will be plenty of people trying.

All that aside I have to disagree with you in your claim to be opposed to these changes. You are being disingenious because you have a long history of appearing to relish the demise of the FAA IR holder and of the IMCr holders, which I think does you no credit because I believe this is to the detriment of GA unless acceptable alternatives are found (which at the moment they have not been) - not that any of it matters directly to me - but that doesnt stop me supporting Pace, IO and others.

Fortunately it would seem you have been proved wrong with reagards the IMCr but I guess even here time will tell - you may yet be correct.

[Pace]

So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall... and even then we won't listen!"

Beagle (BROTHER) we are on the same side fighting the same war

Maybe there should be more marches up Whitehall or planes dropping the dung from a thousand Camels all over EASA headquarters.

There we are a disjointed bunch spread to far and as individuals much too insular and gentlemenly.

The odd angry letter to an MEP isnt going to do a lot. We need unity and load of marketing exercises to expose EASA for what they really are and what they are really doing.

We also have to realise that N reg is hated in some pilot quarters especially AOC ops and flight schools where N reg is seen as nibbling away at their markets.

There is also a holier than thou where FAA licences are still looked down at as inferior in many quarters although that has not been backed up in any statistics.So while we shout many rub their hands with glee at our demise!
Sad as its not N reg which is robbing them but the huge costs of burocracy,needless regulations and interferance.
They are fighting the wrong enemy.

Pace

[IO540]

Practically everybody who flies GA "for real" and who does not support the IMCR is being dishonest.

This is because nearly every one of those pilots started off on the IMCR, and only through the application of copious amount of money, time and a major sacrifice, including the purchase of a suitable aircraft, did they manage to get an IR which (FAA or JAA) has always been out of the reach of the vast majority of UK pilots.

And the vast majority of UK pilots with the FAA IR did it on the back of the IMCR experience, not to mention logbook time.

The vast majority of UK/JAA IR holders I know have done their IR many years before JAA came in, using concessions like the 700hr route.

It's however funny how many people "go native" and start slagging off the very things which got them going.

The odd angry letter to an MEP isnt going to do a lot.

It does do a lot. The MEPs (assuming they are from a country with a backbone of sorts) do hassle EASA.

We need unity and load of marketing exercises to expose EASA for what they really are and what they are really doing.

What is needed is US AOPA - sized lobbying in the EU. I think there is a certain amount of that going on, but the EU has been very carefully set up to disregard commercial lobbying. Look at the way the biggest GSM companies (they don't come much bigger than say Vodafone) have been forced to drop their ludicrous roaming charges. The EU however remains responsive to political under the table dealing.

[englishal]

A person's residency (EU or not) is not some vague and grey thing for 99% of people. All a ramp inspector has to do is get you to sign a declaration.

How does one test for "EU residency"? For example, I spend more than 183 days outside the UK, often on a different continent. I pay taxes around the world, including Norway which is NON EU. I have a property in the UK and a British passport, but that is no test as I could live in Brazil but retain my British passport, and can even get an address (Mailbox or real) outside the UK for £20 per month. IN fact I believe my employment contract is out of the BVI....

I don't see how one can test for EU residency when several of EASA's members are non EU anyway (Norway springs to mind). And I note that all the documents I have read do state EU rather than EEA or whatever it is called now.

[S-Works]

All that aside I have to disagree with you in your claim to be opposed to these changes. You are being disingenious because you have a long history of appearing to relish the demise of the FAA IR holder and of the IMCr holders, which I think does you no credit because I believe this is to the detriment of GA unless acceptable alternatives are found (which at the moment they have not been) - not that any of it matters directly to me - but that doesnt stop me supporting Pace, IO and others.

No I have a long history of relishing the demise of IO540. There is a difference.....

The IMCr aside I have never suggested that the these rules are correct or warranted. I will however point out that it is many years since I told you this regulation was coming and you, pace and IO amongst a few told me a was wrong and that there N Reg movement in Europe was so powerful it would never happen. I would be lying if I said that element did not have some schadenfreude attached to it.

However I do genuinely think these rules are wrong as there is just not a safety case to support it.

Fortunately it would seem you have been proved wrong with reagards the IMCr but I guess even here time will tell - you may yet be correct.

I don't think I have been proven wrong just yet. But am happy to be proven so. Just don't count your chickens yet.

[Fuji Abound]

Bose

Ok, I see.

Not splitting hairs but I dont think I ever took issue with you over the N reg issue since Europe has such a history of wanting control over its own citizens.

We did take issue over the IMCr and perhaps it will prove to be the case that neither of us was right or wrong if we eventually end up with just the grand father rights remaining. I think you thought there would be no IMCr and I thought there would?

If the asurances which appear to have been given regarding grandfather rights are false then I hope neither of us would relish claiming we were right - or wrong, because that would indeed be a hollow "victory".