CAA proposal for ANO amendments for EASA

[IO540]

here

I haven't read it yet ... any views?

I have difficulty understanding why have the two different sections of Part 61. Section 2 b) seems to mean nothing other than the present situation, so why have Section 1?

[cessnapete]

ANO changes

You need a Lawyer to understand it! Hopefully a plain English copy will be issued.
I am sure the CAA Help Desk at Gwk will explain it all when it is time to renew my Licences.
No wonder so many European pilots are FAA'd !!

[wsmempson]

The only change that strikes me as odd is the proposal, in the wake of abolishing the BCPL, is that the holders are to become PPL's or CPL's "as appropriate"...

Who gets to decide which is appropriate?

[robin]

I'm still not clear here.

Where are the transitional arrangements??

[IO540]

I think what this is about is that EASA is set to take over FCL in 2012, and since the UK has signed up to be controlled by the Federal Government of Europe each EU member country needs to change its national laws to incorporate the EASA FCL proposals.

The EASA proposals are not yet law in their entirety. I think only the Basic Regulation is law; the other bits are in various stages.

[Sir George Cayley]

Yes it's all clear to me.......as mud

To give the Campaign some credit, there's a chap there by the name of Chris Whittaker (I think) who in the past has put out some plain English notes to guide you through the Euro Babble.

Hopefully he'll put finger to key board in due course.

Meantime, I'll stick with Pt Fraser "We're all doooomed, Capt Mainwaring"

Sir George Cayley

[BillieBob]

Who gets to decide which is appropriate?

Already done. Restricted BCPLs become PPLs, unrestricted BCPLs become CPLs

Hopefully a plain English copy will be issued
....there's a chap there by the name of Chris Whittaker (I think) who in the past has put out some plain English notes

This is the plain English copy and the Letter of Consultation is signed by Cliff Whittaker!

any views?

Well, I haven't studied it at all deeply but the change to Article 61 seems to extend the application of Article 4.1(d) of the Basic Regulation to include the residency of both the operator and the relevant flight crew member, which is in excess of the current EASA requirements.

[proudprivate]

Well, I haven't studied it at all deeply

Given that BillieBob was at the 7/8 december EASA meeting where he voted yes, I kinda doubt the statement above...

change to Article 61 seems to extend...

feigning surprise meant to start some more heated debate.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by robin

I'm still not clear here.

Where are the transitional arrangements??

It is an interesting document.

1. there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the document
2. there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the document and my recollection is the EU reg defined this as all aircraft other than a specified group, registered in an EASA country or operated by an entity established in an EASA country.
3. the addition of pilot residency in 61 may or may not be relevant. If the aircraft is non-EASA by virtue of it being operated by an overseas operator, then this overriding fact makes the residency of the pilot a subsidiary issue (although slightly different than the EU principle in that it would appear to allow a non EU resident to operate a non UK but locally operated aircraft on any licence acceptable to the state of registry). If on the other hand the intent is to require any aircraft type that is not specifically on the non-EASA list where either the operator or the pilot is resident in the EU to have EASA licences this will come as something of a shock to any foreign aircrew who might be resident in EASA (I.e. A Delta pilot who has chosen to live in the UK)
4. The language specifically removes IMCr privileges rather than the previously muted 'can't take away an existing privilege' logic. (Worth AOPA taking up the 'WTF you guys promised us that you would address this issue in implementation!!' campaign)

[Pace]

MM

But as we all know this is all as relevant as the paper we flush down the Loo.
EASA have stated and extended the date from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of signing and agreeing a Bilateral agreement.
If things are to be believed the first part has already been signed leaving the door open for FCL.
We all know that EASA are working around the clock so that the above will never be required.
Relax, don't worry as we can all trust EASA ?
Just an exercise to keep the CAA busy and in gainful employment .

Pace

[BillieBob]

Given that BillieBob was at the 7/8 december EASA meeting where he voted yes

Given that proudprivate is a liar (or seriously ill-informed) I kinda doubt the value of anything that he posts. Just for the record, I was not present, in person, at the EASA meeting on either the 7th or the 8th December and, consequently, did not cast a vote in either direction. Also for the record, it is my personal and entirely uninformed opinion that proudprivate is seriously deluded - but then, what do I know?

EASA have stated and extended the date from 2012 to 2014 for the sole purpose of signing and agreeing a Bilateral agreement.

Not true. EASA are not in a position to determine an implementation date, that is already enshrined in EU law as 8 April 2012. EASA may 'recommend' a derogation to 2014 (as they have) but it is up to the EU parliament to agree this. However, given that the MEPs will vote only as their puppet-masters direct, this supposed control is entirely ineffective.

there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the document

There don't need to be - the amended ANO must become effective on 8 April 2012 to accord with EU law.

there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the document

There doesn't need to be - an EASA aircraft is anything that is not included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation

If the aircraft is non-EASA by virtue of it being operated by an overseas operator

You clearly do not understand the concept of an EASA aircraft - a PA28 is an EASA aircraft irrespective of where it is registered or who operates it, as is a B747 or a Lear 45.

this will come as something of a shock to any foreign aircrew who might be resident in EASA

Precisely! Under the currently proposed amendment to Article 61 of the ANO, a Delta pilot resident in the UK would need an EASA licence to fly a Delta 767 into Gatwick notwithstanding the fact that the aircraft operator is not 'established' in an EU member state. This restriction, of course, exceeds the EASA requirement and is entirely illegal but, based on past CAA performance, is also entirely predictable.

[mad_jock]

From the little I and my collegues have been told there is going to be a whole heap of planes getting grounded with pilots in pokey on that date if they are daft enough to operate into certain countrys. UK should be OK but stay well clear of France and Germany. Aparentoly its going to be ground and ask questions when they have time which with the numbers involved will be more than a couple of days in the slammer.

If it wasn't so serious with guys with familys it would be funny.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by BillieBob

There doesn't need to be - an EASA aircraft is anything that is not included in Annex II to the Basic Regulation
You clearly do not understand the concept of an EASA aircraft - a PA28 is an EASA aircraft irrespective of where it is registered or who operates it, as is a B747 or a Lear 45.
Precisely! Under the currently proposed amendment to Article 61 of the ANO, a Delta pilot resident in the UK would need an EASA licence to fly a Delta 767 into Gatwick notwithstanding the fact that the aircraft operator is not 'established' in an EU member state. This restriction, of course, exceeds the EASA requirement and is entirely illegal but, based on past CAA performance, is also entirely predictable.

on that basis one assumes the whole world wide fleet of aircraft (other than annex 2) aircraft are now EASA aircraft and the UK ANO is trying to establish operating rules for those world wide if either the operator or pilot has a tie to the EU. (and the said delta pilot would need an EASA licence to fly into Atlanta as well!)(it is not I don't understand, it was my recollection the regulations FCL, OPS, MAN were structured to try to not claim control of the world wide aircraft inventory)

[Pace]

Oh well 14 exams. Six months full time study for an ATP. 20K cost all in and dead brain cells to remember how many molecules in a screen.

My knowledge and thousands of hours prop turbine and jet count for nothing.

Thats it folks that will be me dead and buried by the EASA machine.
Is it easy to become a train driver?

Knew we should have never joined the EEC

Pace

[bookworm]

there isn't a definition of an EASA aircraft in the document

There isn't one in the amendment because it's already defined in the ANO.

'EASA aircraft' means an aircraft which is required by the Basic EASA Regulation and any implementing rules adopted by the Commission in accordance with that Regulation to hold an EASA certificate of airworthiness, an EASA restricted certificate of airworthiness or an EASA permit to fly;

As far as I can see, that definition includes

"aircraft registered in a Member State, unless their regulatory safety oversight has been delegated to a third country and they are not used by a Community operator" (i.e. within the BR by virtue of 4(1)(b))

and excludes

"aircraft registered in a third country and used by an operator for which any Member State ensures oversight of operations or used into, within or out of the Community by an operator established or residing in the Community;" (i.e. within the BR by virtue of 4(1)(c))

It looks like the draft amendment makes an attempt to deal with that in Art 61(1), but cites the wrong paragraph, 4(1)(d)

"aircraft registered in a third country, or registered in a Member State which has delegated their regulatory safety oversight to a third country, and used by a third-country operator into, within or out of the Community"

Personnel involved in the operations of aircraft falling under 4(1)(d) are not required by the BR to comply with the Essential Requirements for Pilot Licensing and do not fall within the scope of Part-FCL.

The whole structure of the FRA provisions is pretty clumsy (I'm not slinging mud -- it's complicated) and needs some review.

[bookworm]

there are clearly no transitional arrangements in the document
...
There don't need to be - the amended ANO must become effective on 8 April 2012 to accord with EU law.

If the UK were going to take advantage of the derogations, wouldn't you expect the transitional arrangements to appear in the ANO even if they had to get the legislation in place by April 2012?

[BillieBob]

If the UK were going to take advantage of the derogations, wouldn't you expect the transitional arrangements to appear in the ANO

No, the ANO will deal only with arrangements for Annex II aircraft. After 8 April 2012, the UK has no power to legislate in respect of EASA aircraft in the area of flight crew licensing. Derogations are as permitted by EU law and the UK CAA has already published its intentions in this respect..

[bookworm]

No, the ANO will deal only with arrangements for Annex II aircraft. After 8 April 2012, the UK has no power to legislate in respect of EASA aircraft in the area of flight crew licensing.

But that's clearly not the case. The ANO amendments as proposed do legislate in respect of EASA aircraft. They must do so in a way that is consistent with the EU Regulation, and if the ANO were not changed, it wouldn't prevent the EU Regulation from having direct effect in the UK. But the amendments do cover EASA aircraft, even if the amended ANO simply says that Part-FCL, and not the explicit provisions in the ANO, apply to the crew of these aircraft.

Derogations are as permitted by EU law and the UK CAA has already published its intentions in this respect..

True enough, but it would be a bit silly if in 2013 a UK licence were permitted for flying a G-reg aircraft by Part-FCL via a derogation, but forbidden by the UK's own ANO. And as far as I can see, that's what the proposed amendment does.

[IO540]

That CAA page has vanished. Has anybody got a new URL, or a copy?

[IO540]

It's here

Small change in Article 61, I think.